Relating to granting the Intermediate Court of Appeals jurisdiction to hear certified questions
HB2028 would expand the authority of the West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) in two related ways. First, it would expressly give the ICA jurisdiction to hear certified questions involving the constitutionality of a state statute, rule, or executive order when that issue is raised in a circuit court case. Second, it creates a procedure allowing a party in a circuit court civil case to request an expedited answer from the ICA on that constitutional question, with the circuit court generally pausing further action until the ICA responds.
The bill also amends the appellate jurisdiction provisions governing the ICA to clarify what types of cases it may and may not hear. It preserves the ICA’s role over most civil appeals, family court appeals, guardianship and conservatorship matters, certain administrative appeals, workers’ compensation matters, and related transferred cases, while continuing to exclude criminal cases, juvenile matters, abuse and neglect cases, commitment orders, disciplinary proceedings, Public Service Commission decisions, interlocutory appeals, and extraordinary writ proceedings. The new certified-question authority is carved out as an exception to the existing exclusion for certified questions of law.
If enacted, HB2028 would change West Virginia appellate procedure by creating a statutory right for parties in circuit court to seek an immediate appellate ruling from the Intermediate Court of Appeals on constitutional questions about state law, regulations, or executive orders. It would require written motions within 60 days after the issue is raised, service on all parties and, in some cases, the Attorney General, and would make the ICA’s answer binding on the circuit court and the parties, subject to further appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals. The bill would therefore affect litigants challenging state action, circuit courts handling those cases, the ICA’s docket, and the Attorney General’s participation in constitutional litigation.
The bill appears generally favorable in tone based on its stated purpose, which emphasizes speed, statewide importance, and the public interest in having constitutional questions resolved promptly by elected appellate judges. The available record does not include committee debate or votes, so there is no documented opposition or support from legislators in the provided materials. Overall, the bill reads as a procedural reform intended to streamline constitutional review rather than a controversial policy change.
The main point of potential contention is the shift in how and when constitutional questions are resolved, because the bill would let a party force an expedited appellate ruling and would pause circuit court proceedings while the ICA considers the issue. That could be viewed as improving efficiency and uniformity, but also as adding delay or strategic leverage in ongoing litigation. Another possible issue is institutional balance: the bill expands the ICA’s role in constitutional matters that are currently excluded from its jurisdiction, and it gives the Attorney General a formal role when the state is not already a party. No specific objections or supporters are recorded in the provided transcript or vote history.