Delaware Senate Bill SCR16

Delaware 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/30/25
• Engrossed: 1/30/25
• Enrolled: 1/30/25

Caption

Requesting An Advisory Opinion Of The Justices Of The Delaware Supreme Court Regarding The Validity Of Gubernatorial Nominations Before The Delaware State Senate.

Summary

Senate Concurrent Resolution 16 does not change substantive law or create a new rule for nominations. Instead, it formally asks the Justices of the Delaware Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on a constitutional question arising from a dispute over gubernatorial appointments. The resolution asks whether Governor Bethany Hall-Long had authority to submit nominations during the relevant January 2025 period, and if so, whether Governor Matthew Meyer may lawfully withdraw those nominations after they were transmitted to the Senate. The resolution recites the factual background: the prior governor submitted nominations on January 17, 2025; the current governor attempted to withdraw them on January 21, 2025; and the Senate Executive Committee nevertheless held a hearing and advanced the nominations. The General Assembly states that the nominations concern matters of urgent importance to the Delaware economy and workers, and it seeks judicial guidance to ensure that the Senate’s consideration proceeds in a constitutionally sound manner. It also asks the Court to respond by March 10, 2025, if possible, and directs legislative leaders to transmit the resolution to the Court and the Governor.

Impact

SCR 16 affects Delaware law procedurally by invoking Title 10, Section 141, which allows the General Assembly to request an advisory opinion from the Delaware Supreme Court on constitutional questions. It does not amend the Delaware Code or Constitution, but it seeks authoritative guidance on Article III, Section 9 and separation-of-powers principles as they apply to pending gubernatorial nominations. The practical impact is on the Senate’s handling of those nominations and on the scope of a governor’s power to withdraw nominations submitted by a predecessor.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment reflected in the resolution and the recorded votes is strongly supportive and institutional rather than partisan. The measure passed the Senate 19-0 and the House 34-0, indicating unanimous approval in both chambers. The text emphasizes deliberation, legality, and constitutional clarity, suggesting broad agreement that the courts should resolve the dispute before the Senate proceeds further.

Contention

The central point of contention is whether a sitting governor can withdraw nominations already submitted to the Senate by a prior governor, and whether those nominations remain validly before the chamber. A related issue is whether the prior governor had authority to make the nominations during the transition period between administrations. The resolution also reflects an underlying separation-of-powers dispute, with the current governor reportedly questioning the nominations’ constitutionality and signaling possible litigation, while the General Assembly seeks judicial confirmation of its own authority to consider them.