Lawsuit against Fitial over veto of casino bill is dismissed

Superior Court associate judge David A. Wiseman dismissed yesterday for lack of standing the lawsuit filed by Rep. Joseph Palacios (R-Saipan) against Gov. Benigno R. Fitial over the governor’s veto of the controversial Saipan casino bill.

“Without standing there exists no actual or justiciable case in controversy and therefore this case cannot be brought forth,” said Wiseman in his order granting Fitial’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

The judge noted that Palacios argues that the issue here is not the veto of the governor itself but the issue of “whether a local law is Commonwealth law.”

Wiseman said that without an actual controversy-which the doctrine of standing is designed to ensure-the court cannot address the question regardless of its importance.

“The courts do not have the time or resources to issue advisory opinions when no actual controversy exists,” Wiseman said.

The judge noted that the Constitution has provided a means for redress when a dispute arises between elected officials through the certified question process, which allows an issue to be processed in a expedited manner before the CNMI Supreme Court.

“As plaintiff does not have standing to bring the case, remaining issues, including plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, will not be addressed by this court and the case is hereby dismissed,” Wiseman said.

The case arose after Fitial vetoed House Local Bill 17-44, which the Saipan and Northern Islands Legislative Delegation had passed to legalize casino gaming by exempting Saipan from the Commonwealth-wide prohibition on gambling.

Palacios, as chairman of the Saipan and Northern Islands Local Delegation’s Committee on Judicial and Governmental Operations, filed the petition in court in October seeking declaratory relief that HLB 17-44 be declared a Commonwealth law.

Fitial, through assistant attorney general Michael Stanker, moved to dismiss the case, arguing Palacios’ lack of standing and that the governor’s reasons for vetoing the bill are constitutionally sufficient. Palacios filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.

In his order yesterday, Wiseman said the court must look at whether Palacios has standing to determine whether an actual controversy exists.

“Standing is ‘a concept utilized to determine if a party is sufficiently affected so as to insure that a justiciable controversy is presented to the court,’” the judge said, citing precedent.

Standing requires the elements of personal injury in fact, causation, and redressability, which Wiseman found to be absent in this case. Without standing, a case cannot go forward, he said.

Palacios alleges he was injured through Fitial’s veto message which “damag[ed] his political reputation and ‘electability.’” This alleged injury, Wiseman said, is not the type of concrete injury that meets the requirement.

Moreover, Wiseman said, an elected member of the Legislature cannot have suffered a personal injury from a veto of a legislative bill. “It follows, that, without injury there can be no causation.”

Wiseman said the doctrine of legislative immunity would prevent the suit from going forward against Fitial who was acting within the legislative process.

Wiseman said Fitial issued a memorandum detailing the reasons of his veto and this court is not in a position to review it for its merits.