Rapp v. Carey, 44 N.Y.2d 157 (1978)
The Governor of New York cannot, through executive order alone, mandate financial disclosure and restrictions on political/business activities for state employees without explicit or implied authorization from the Constitution or statutes.
Summary
This case concerns the extent of the Governor’s executive power in New York. State employees challenged Governor Carey’s Executive Order No. 10.1, which required extensive financial disclosures and restricted political and business activities for many state employees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, holding that the Governor exceeded his authority by issuing an executive order that effectively created new state policy without legislative approval. The Court emphasized the separation of powers doctrine and the need for legislative action to enact broad policy changes, especially those impacting a wide range of state employees.
Facts
Governor Carey issued Executive Order No. 10.1, requiring a large segment of State employees to file detailed personal financial statements with the Board of Public Disclosure. The order applied to employees earning over $30,000 annually or holding managerial/confidential positions in executive departments/agencies appointed by the Governor. The order also restricted these employees from holding political party office and regulated their outside employment/activities. Covered employees were directed to submit financial disclosure statements.
Procedural History
Affected state employees brought an action challenging the constitutionality of the Executive Order. The Special Term granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, declaring the order unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed this decision, leading to the appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Governor of New York, under the State Constitution, may mandate, via executive order and without legislative authorization, that state employees file financial disclosure statements and abstain from political and business activities not prohibited by statute.
Holding
No, because neither the Constitution nor statutes grant the Governor express or implied authority to impose such requirements unilaterally. Furthermore, the order does not merely implement existing conflict-of-interest legislation but instead creates new policy, a power reserved for the Legislature.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized the principle of separation of powers, noting that the Governor’s power is limited to those powers delegated by the Constitution and statutes. While the Governor possesses broad executive power, including the power to oversee state departments and investigate their affairs (Executive Law, § 6), this does not extend to creating new policy without legislative approval. The Court distinguished Executive Order No. 10.1 from previous executive actions, stating, “But, until 1950, none of those orders had any rule-making component.”
The Court rejected the argument that the executive order was merely an implementation of Section 74 of the Public Officers Law (the state’s code of ethics). The court stated, “In short, this order is not an implementation of section 74; it is a nullification of it — a nullification, however benevolent in purpose, without benefit of legislative action.” It emphasized that the Legislature deliberately created a code of ethics with broad standards, intending that conflicts of interest be resolved on a case-by-case basis, rather than through blanket prohibitions.
The court also noted the problematic restriction on political activities which “involves a broad question of policy, hardly resolvable by other than the representatively elected lawmaking branch of government, the Legislature.”
The Court distinguished the out-of-state cases cited by the defendants, noting that they were based on different constitutional or statutory provisions. The Court concluded by stating, “On no reasonable reading of the Constitution, the Executive Law, or the relevant provisions of the Public Officers Law can the Governor’s exercise of legislative power, exemplified in the executive order, be sustained.” The Court explicitly references the importance of preventing any single branch of government from assuming powers belonging to another, quoting People v. Tremaine, “Rather should we be alive to the imperceptible but gradual increase in the assumption of power properly belonging to another department.”