## Facts

- The Iowa General Assembly enacted Senate File 517, an appropriations bill funding, among other things, Iowa Workforce Development (IWD).
- Section 15(3) appropriated $8.66 million “for the operation of field offices” of IWD.
- The Governor did not veto the $8.66 million appropriation, but issued item vetoes striking:
  - Section 15(3)(c), which prohibited the closure of field offices;
  - Section 15(5), which defined “field office” to require “the presence of a staff person”; and
  - Section 20, which restricted IWD from spending appropriated funds on the National Career Readiness Certificate Program.
- The vetoes were issued after the legislature adjourned (during the adjournment/pocket-veto period).
- A union leader and several state legislators sued, alleging the Governor impermissibly vetoed restrictions on spending while leaving the money intact, violating Iowa Constitution article III, section 16.
- The district court upheld the veto of section 20 but held the vetoes of sections 15(3)(c) and 15(5) invalid; both sides appealed on expedited review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Governor may item-veto provisions in an appropriations bill that function as conditions, qualifications, or restrictions on an appropriation without vetoing the appropriation itself under Iowa Constitution article III, section 16.
2. Whether the vetoes of the “field office” definition (section 15(5)) and the spending restriction on the certificate program (section 20) were vetoes of separate appropriations “items” or impermissible vetoes of conditions on appropriations.
3. What remedy applies when an impermissible conditional item veto occurs during the adjournment/pocket-veto period.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court held the item vetoes of section 15(5) and section 20 were unconstitutional because they struck restrictions on appropriations while leaving the accompanying appropriations intact.
- The court treated the veto of section 15(3)(c) differently and did not invalidate it on the same basis as section 15(5), viewing the definitional restriction in section 15(5) as more directly qualifying the “field offices” appropriation.
- Because the unconstitutional vetoes occurred during the adjournment/pocket-veto period, the court held the affected appropriations failed to become law.
- The court invalidated sections 15 and 20 of the bill in their entirety and remanded for entry of judgment to that effect.
- Disposition: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Under Iowa Constitution article III, section 16, the Governor may item-veto an “item” of appropriation but may not selectively veto conditions, definitions, qualifications, or restrictions tied to an appropriation while leaving the funding in place.
- A provision that defines or limits the scope of funded activity (e.g., defining what counts as a “field office” for purposes of an appropriation) can function as a restriction on the appropriation rather than an independent appropriations item.
- A provision barring an agency from using appropriated funds for a particular program is a restriction on the use of existing appropriations, not a separate appropriations item.
- When an impermissible conditional veto occurs during the adjournment/pocket-veto period, the associated appropriation item does not become law; the remedy is not simply to disregard the veto and enforce the appropriation as enacted.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a strict item-versus-condition line for Iowa’s gubernatorial item veto, holding that striking spending restrictions without vetoing the related funding exceeded constitutional authority, and that when such an invalid conditional veto occurs after adjournment, the affected appropriations provisions fail to become law.


Homan v. Branstad, 812 N.W.2d 623 (Iowa 2012)