## Facts

- The West Virginia Constitution requires the Governor, during the term of office, to “reside at the seat of government.” W. Va. Const. art. VII, § 1.
- James Conley Justice, II was serving as Governor and had taken an oath to support the Constitution and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.
- G. Isaac Sponaugle, III alleged that Governor Justice was not residing at the seat of government in Charleston, including not residing at the Governor’s Mansion.
- Sponaugle filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, asking the court to order Governor Justice to comply with the constitutional residency requirement.
- Governor Justice moved to dismiss, arguing that enforcement of the residency clause presented a nonjusticiable political question and that mandamus was not available to compel the Governor in this context.
- The circuit court (Judge Charles E. King, Jr.) denied the motion to dismiss, allowing the mandamus action to proceed.
- Governor Justice then filed an original-jurisdiction petition in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia seeking a writ of prohibition to stop the circuit court from proceeding.
- In seeking prohibition, Governor Justice argued, among other points, that the word “reside” involved executive judgment and could not be policed by the judiciary through mandamus.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a mandamus action to enforce the Governor’s duty under Article VII, § 1 to “reside at the seat of government,” because the dispute is a political question or otherwise barred by separation-of-powers principles.
2. Whether mandamus is legally unavailable to compel the Governor’s compliance with the constitutional residency requirement, such that denial of the motion to dismiss was clearly erroneous as a matter of law.
3. Whether the Governor satisfied the requirements for a writ of prohibition to halt further proceedings in the circuit court.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied the petition for a writ of prohibition.
- The Court held the circuit court has jurisdiction to consider a mandamus petition seeking enforcement of the constitutional command that the Governor “reside at the seat of government.”
- The Court rejected the Governor’s claim, at this stage of the case, that the controversy was nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine and separation-of-powers limits.
- The Court concluded the Governor did not meet the demanding standard for prohibition, which requires more than disagreement with a trial court’s interlocutory ruling.
- The Court made clear it was not resolving the ultimate merits of whether Governor Justice had complied with the residency requirement, leaving factual development and merits rulings to the circuit court.

## Legal Principles

- Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy; it is not a substitute for appeal and will not issue to correct ordinary error, especially where the lower court has general subject-matter jurisdiction.
- When prohibition is sought based on alleged legal error (rather than a complete absence of jurisdiction), the petitioner must show clear legal error and satisfy the established prohibition factors, including whether there is another adequate remedy and whether the petitioner will suffer harm not correctable on appeal.
- Interpretation and enforcement of an express constitutional provision is a judicial function; a court may decide whether a constitutional duty exists and what it requires.
- The political question doctrine does not bar review simply because a case involves a high executive officer; the doctrine applies when the matter is textually committed to another branch or lacks judicially manageable standards.
- Mandamus may lie to compel performance of a non-discretionary legal duty imposed by the Constitution; the Governor is not categorically immune from mandamus when the claim is that the Constitution imposes a mandatory duty.
- Disagreement about the meaning or application of a constitutional term (such as “reside”) does not, by itself, remove the dispute from the courts or eliminate circuit-court authority to hear the mandamus case.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied Governor Justice’s request for a writ of prohibition, holding that the Circuit Court of Kanawha County could proceed with Sponaugle’s mandamus action seeking enforcement of Article VII, § 1’s requirement that the Governor reside at the seat of government, and that the Governor had not shown the type of clear legal error or jurisdictional overreach needed for prohibitory relief.


State ex rel. Justice v. King, 852 S.E.2d 292 (2020)