Newsroom

TOPEKA – Today, the Kansas Supreme Court issued its ruling on Kelly v. Kobach. Governor Laura Kelly filed the lawsuit against Attorney General Kris Kobach in the Kansas Supreme Court to protect the State of Kansas and the constitutional powers of the Office of the Governor. In response to the ruling affirming the Governor’s constitutional authority to protect Kansas from unlawful federal overreach, Governor Kelly issued the following statement:

“The Court’s majority opinion recognizes that the Office of the Governor indeed does have an independent voice in litigation regarding matters that impact the executive branch and state agencies overseen by the governor,” Governor Laura Kelly said. “This opinion acknowledges that the Attorney General conceded his blatant partisanship cannot undermine my administration’s efforts to protect and stand up for Kansans. If the Attorney General continues to refuse to stand up for the state, Kansans can be assured that I will.”

The Court’s majority opinion states:

“For his part, the Attorney General also made crucial concessions at oral argument that make clear he does not contest the Governor's constitutional authority to represent the legal interests of her office or of the executive agencies she oversees:

‘[The Court]: The question is, who is the client? And if the client is only the Governor in her own name, her own official capacity, and the executive agencies . . . which she has authority over by law, if those are the clients that she is seeking to represent, you wouldn't have a problem with that would you? Or maybe you would?

‘[Attorney General Kobach]: Actually, no I wouldn't, your honor. . . . If they're retreating to the position she still can sue on behalf of her office, then we are in 100% agreement. And that's what she's doing today. She's suing on behalf of her office.’

“The Attorney General followed this up by explaining that what he does object to is a characterization of the legal interests of the Office of Governor that is so broad it swallows the interests of Kansas as a whole—interests he believes only he, as the Attorney General, is authorized to represent in court.

“These concessions and developments prove immensely consequential to the outcome of this case. In fact—at least for purposes of this case—they eliminate from our consideration the most important question this case initially presented: who speaks for the State? The Governor expressly disclaimed any effort to represent the interests of the sovereign State of Kansas in litigation and conceded that this responsibility lies with the Attorney General as the State's chief legal officer. While the constitutional underpinnings of that conclusion remain cloudy at best—they are no longer part of this case and we need not delve into them here. Likewise, Attorney General Kobach's concessions make clear what he more obliquely admitted in his amicus brief—that he agrees with the basic principle we outlined above that the Governor is empowered to litigate on behalf of the legal interests of her office and those of the executive agencies she oversees—however broad or narrow those legal interests may be.” (emphasis added).

This ruling allows Governor Kelly to continue her involvement in the lawsuit seeking to prevent the federal administration from unlawfully terminating congressionally approved funds for several public health and safety programs including testing for lead in schools and child care facilities, environmental cleanup, ensuring the safety of dams, and financing to improve drinking water safety.

More information about this lawsuit can be found here. 

###