Home California In Tentative Ruling, Court Declares Governor’s Abuse of Power Unconstitutional

In Tentative Ruling, Court Declares Governor’s Abuse of Power Unconstitutional

by ECT

YUBA CITY – Today, a State Superior Court judge tentatively ruled in favor of Assemblymembers James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) and Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) in their abuse of power lawsuit against Governor Gavin Newsom.

In the tentative ruling, Judge Sarah Heckman declared the Governor’s recent Executive Order N-67-20 unconstitutional. More importantly, Judge Heckman’s tentative ruling places a permanent injunction against the Governor which prevents him from unilaterally making or changing state law moving forward.

Click here to read the tentative ruling issued today in Sutter County Superior Court.

Assemblymembers Gallagher and Kiley said, “We have been arguing that the California Emergency Services Act does not provide for one-man rule. Today, the Court agreed with us.”

“This is a victory for separation of powers. The Governor has continued to create and change state law without public input and without the deliberative process provided by the Legislature.  Today the judicial branch again gave him the check that was needed and that the Constitution requires.”

“Nobody disputes that there are actions that should be taken to keep people safe during an emergency. But that doesn’t mean that we put our Constitution and free society on hold by centralizing all power in the hands of one man,” Gallagher and Kiley concluded.

The Court’s decision does not impact any of the election protocols for the 2020 election.


Assemblyman James Gallagher represents the 3rd Assembly District, which encompasses all of Glenn, Sutter, Tehama and Yuba counties as well as portions of Butte and Colusa counties.

Assemblyman Kevin Kiley represents the 6th Assembly District, which includes the Sacramento, Placer, and El Dorado County communities of Cameron Park, El Dorado Hills, Fair Oaks, Folsom, Granite Bay, Lincoln, Loomis, Orangevale, Penryn, Rocklin, Roseville, and Sheridan.

You may also like


Fact Checker Nov 2, 2020 - 3:39 pm

From the Court ruling:

“Injunctive relief is proper in this case for the following reasons: The Govemor has issued a
multitude of executive orders under the purported authority of the CESA, many of which have amended statutory law. (Pl. Ex. F) The Govemor has asserted both publicly and consistently through the course of these proceedings his belief that Executive Order N-67-20 amending the Elections Code is “on firm legal ground,” Legislative enactment “is not strictly necessary,” and the Executive Order was a lawtrrl exercise of his emergency powers under the CESA. (Pl. Ex. H, p. 5, referencing statements made at May 22,2020 press conference; Defendant’s Trial Brief p. 6-9) The state of emergency proclaimed on March 4,2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic continues, with no end date in sight. (Def. Ex. 2) The amendments to the Elections Code made by AB 860 pertain only to the November 3,2020 General Election and Chapter 7 (gg1600-1606.) of the Elections Code added by SB 423 is only effective until January l, 2021 and as of that date is repealed. Based on the history of special elections since 2008, it is very likely a special Election will become necessary in early 2021.”

If the Court’s decision does not impact any election protocols for the 2020 Election, how come a Special Election in 2021 is “very likely”? The whole purpose of the lawsuit was to countermand Executive Order N-67-20 which amended the elections code without legislative approval. If the Executive Order is countermanded, then sending mail-in ballots to all residents of California becomes an illegal act as certain voting districts do not allow those changes without following strict procedures which were not followed.

J McLaughlin Nov 2, 2020 - 4:02 pm

Thanks to our two representatives for taking this to court and winning. I do want to know what was really achieved. Where are the consequences in this ruling against the governor. The damage that has been done thru his unconstitutional orders needs to be reversed. Is there any hope this judge will make the ruling more encompassing?

Yeahright Nov 2, 2020 - 11:07 pm

Nicely done gentlemen, nicely done!
Thank you

LoveableCurmudgeon Nov 3, 2020 - 4:16 am

OOOOOOOO> Da Big, Bad Governor, acting on the advice of medical and scientific experts, acted to hold down the spread of the Coronavirus in California. And people have their knickers in a bunch cuz he demand we wear masks and refrain from large gatherings. Bad man!

Pastor Maynard Nov 3, 2020 - 8:41 am

That’s the Right for ya….
Republicanism: twisting calls for basic human rights, adherence to science/evidence, and attempts at better public health into fearmongered conspiracy theories since 1968.

Jane dough Nov 3, 2020 - 7:46 am

Our constitution was made to protect people of their rights. The basic human right does not end where your fear begins. If you love the massa soo much, by all means, follow his orders. But please, remember that once you start allowing a person in power to slide on lil things they will take full advantage and start ice skating all over us.

If you’re that afraid of this virus, I would also like you to start researching and turn off the news. There is data out there and you need to inform yourself. Once you do, you won’t have such a love for politicians any more.

Jg Nov 3, 2020 - 9:19 am

This Governor is a Socialist Far Left Radical. The country is for the people and by the people. This is one great step for liberty and freedom. It’s one less step for socialism. God Bless America ! Vote smart , no left turns

TSG Nov 3, 2020 - 9:56 am

Newsome is a dictator. We must stop him.

Comments are closed.