Indiana attorney general argues governor exceeding authority


Indiana’s attorney general argues in new legal filings that the governor is wrongly trying to use the courts to expand his powers with a lawsuit challenging the authority state legislators have given themselves to intervene during public emergencies.

Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb asked a judge last month to block the new law passed by the GOP-dominated Legislature following criticism from many conservatives over the statewide mask mandate and other COVID-19 restrictions that Holcomb imposed by executive orders.

Attorney General Todd Rokita, also a Republican and past Holcomb rival, claims in court documents filed late Monday that he is within his legal authority to turn down Holcomb’s request to take the dispute to court after the Legislature overrode the governor’s veto of the new law. His office’s court filing repeatedly calls the governor’s lawyers “unauthorized counsel” in asking for them to be removed from the case.


“A lawsuit by the Governor against legislators to invalidate a law enacted over the Governor’s veto amounts to a demand for a ‘super’ veto via the judiciary,” the attorney general’s court filing said. “It is no small thing for one branch of government to drag another branch of government to account before the third branch of government. No constitutional provision secures to officials of any branch such extraordinary power.”

Holcomb’s lawyers argued last week that Rokita was making “absurd” arguments that he alone has the legal authority to represent the state in court and can decide whether the new law is constitutional.

John Trimble, Holcomb’s lead lawyer with the Indianapolis firm Lewis Wagner, referred questions Tuesday to the governor’s office, which didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.

The governor and some legal experts maintain the state constitution doesn’t allow the new process under which legislative leaders could call the General Assembly into what it calls an “emergency session.” The governor’s lawsuit argues that the Legislature is “usurping a power given exclusively to the governor” under the state constitution to call lawmakers into a special session.

The Marion County judge handling the case hasn’t yet set any hearings or indicated when a ruling might be issued.

Rokita sought the Republican nomination to run for governor in 2016 but lost to Holcomb and is widely seen as wanting to succeed the term-limited governor after the 2024 election. He said during last year’s election campaign that he supported curtailing the governor’s emergency powers and he didn’t defend Holcomb from criticism of his coronavirus restrictions.

The attorney general’s latest filing renewed the argument that Holcomb’s against legislators isn’t allowed to proceed now under state law because the General Assembly technically is still in session despite concluding its regular business for the year on April 22. That’s because lawmakers extended the deadline for this year’s legislative session from April 29 until Nov. 15 because of delays in receiving census data so they can approve new congressional and legislative election districts.

Rokita’s office is asking the judge to delay the case for at least 30 days after the Legislature adjourns even if it is allowed to proceed.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Story Continues Below

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our updated comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

5 thoughts on “Indiana attorney general argues governor exceeding authority

  1. The story should read, “Holcomb’s lead lawyer paid for by the taxpayers of Indiana”. I believe the position of the AG is that in disputes between the legislative and the executive branch the mediation should be by the AG not the courts. If a private citizen or group wishes to challenge the law’s constitutionality then the court can deny the filing or hear the parties then provide a ruling or guidance on reconstructing the law. The governor forced this to happen by not consulting the legislature, but instead chose to use his executive powers with no check or balance. The governor has constitutional rights in a time of emergency, but the constitution should not grant that authority on an unlimited basis. Most importantly, the electorate wants their elected legislatures to be a part of these decisions. Had the pandemic hit in 2019, I predict the governor would not have won the R-primary in 2020.

    1. When there is a dispute between the executive branch and the legislative branch, the “check-and-balance” is provided by the judicial branch with the state Supreme Court’s interpretation of the relevant laws (either as contained in the Constitution or in the state statutes). The attorney general’s role is to advise the executive branch on possible courses of action and potential outcomes. It is the governor’s role to decided what course of action to pursue. If the attorney general disagrees (as I suspect the governor knew he would), he should recuse himself and let the governor use outside counsel to protect the powers of the executive branch.

    2. Stanley, you can speak your opinion, but you don’t speak for “the electorate”. As a citizen of Indiana and thus part of the electorate, I for one am tired of the GOP super majority wasting taxpayer resources enacting clearly unconstitutional laws. The Indiana Constitution is explicit that only the Governor can call the General Assembly into special session. And, as a member of the electorate, I have been mostly pleased with Gov. Holcomb’s handling of the pandemic, at least until lately when he has caved to conservative pressure to end mask mandates and pull the rug out from under the unemployed.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}