## Facts

- The Iowa General Assembly enacted five appropriation bills that appropriated funds to specific departments and included provisos barring transfers of those funds under Iowa Code § 8.39.
- The provisos did not appropriate additional sums; they restricted executive authority to transfer or reallocate appropriated money between departments.
- The Governor approved each bill’s appropriations but used the constitutional item veto to strike only the transfer-restricting provisos, leaving the appropriations intact.
- The legislature did not override the vetoes.
- A state senator filed a declaratory judgment action alleging the vetoes exceeded the governor’s item-veto authority because the excised language was not a severable “item” of appropriation.
- The trial court upheld the vetoes and dismissed the case as moot because the affected funds had been spent or reverted.
- The Iowa Supreme Court reached the merits under the public-importance exception to mootness and reviewed whether the vetoed provisos were valid subjects of an item veto.

## Issues

1. Whether the governor’s item-veto power under Iowa Const. art. III, § 16 permits vetoing provisos in appropriation bills that restrict transfers or uses of appropriated funds, when the provisos function as conditions rather than distinct appropriations.
2. Whether the court should decide the dispute despite technical mootness because the scope of the item-veto power presents a question of public importance likely to recur.

## Decision

- The court held the case was properly decided despite mootness under the public-importance exception.
- The court reversed the trial court’s ruling upholding the vetoes.
- The court held the transfer-restricting provisos were limitations on appropriations, not separate “items” of appropriation.
- Because the provisos were not distinct and severable appropriation items, the governor’s item veto could not be used to strike them while leaving the appropriations in place.
- The court invalidated the governor’s item vetoes as to those provisos (recognizing the immediate fiscal effects had already occurred).

## Legal Principles

- The governor’s item veto in an appropriation bill extends only to distinct, severable “items” of appropriation, not to every clause of an appropriation act.
- An “item” is a discrete sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose; conditions that qualify how an appropriation may be used are not vetoable items.
- The executive may not use the item veto to remove legislative restrictions while retaining the underlying appropriation, because that functions as an unconstitutional alteration of legislative policy choices rather than a disapproval of spending.
- Courts may decide a technically moot case when the issue is of great public importance, is likely to recur, and an authoritative ruling is desirable to guide public officials.

## Conclusion

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the governor could not use the item veto to excise transfer-restriction provisos from appropriation bills because those provisos were conditions on appropriations, not separate appropriations; the court reached the merits under the public-importance exception and reversed the judgment upholding the vetoes.


Rush v. Ray, 362 N.W.2d 479 (Iowa 1985)