Tuesday’s arguments at the state’s highest court were about Reeves partial veto of a bill that was approved by Mississippi’s Legislature and appropriated funds from federal Coronavirus Aid, Recover and Economics Security Act (CARES Act) Act funds. Taggart claimed that the governor’s ability of issuing partial vetoes was severely limited by at least three court cases, the first being in the 1890s, and the subsequent cases in the 1990s. Reeves was represented by Michael Bentley, an attorney from Jackson. He said that this case was unique in several ways. One, the governor had issued the partial veto during session of the Legislature, which meant members could override it. In the other cases, however, the partial vetoes had been issued after the Legislature had adjourned for the calendar year. In their questioning, Supreme Court Justices James Maxwell and Josiah Coleman seemed to indicate that the fact that the Legislature was in session at the time Reeves issued a partial veto was different from previous cases. Taggart claimed it was a “distinction with a difference”. After all, Taggart noted that legislators can exercise their right to veto any request made during regular session. This has been done in the past. The lawsuit was filed by Speaker Philip Gunn, House Pro Tem Jason White and is the first time this year that Reeves has been elected governor. It marks the beginning of a series of clashes between the Republican governor and the legislative leadership. They fought earlier in the year over who was allowed to spend the $1.25 million in CARES Act funds that the state received. Reeves eventually agreed. Reeves also opposed the Legislature’s successful attempts to retire the state flag which included the Confederate battle emblem. However, he signed the legislation. Bentley stated that the governor’s veto was a constitutional exercise to control the Legislature’s spending power. Reeves’ partial vote covered the planned spending of $2million for Senatobia’s shuttered hospital contingent on its reopening in October, and $6 million to fund Federal Qualified Health Centers to address health care disparities highlighted in the COVID-19 pandemic. These proposals were part of $91million that was designated for the Department of Health and would be used to fund hospitals across the state as well as other health care providers. Other sections of the bill provided money for the Department of Health as well as other state agencies. Taggart claimed that the state Constitution allowed the governor to veto the entire section that appropriated money to the Department of Health and to any other state agencies that were receiving funds from the bill. Based on court precedents, the Constitution does not allow a governor the power to veto language that expresses “a purpose or condition” about how the money should go. He argued that the Senatobia hospital and Federally Qualified Health Centers were designated for a purpose or condition. Taggart urged Taggart to get the Supreme Court’s attention quickly as the CARES Act funds have to be spent by this year. The legislation is written in such a way that it’s unlikely that the money can be transferred to Senatobia County to pay for the hospital. However, money can still be disbursed to address health care disparities in the state. Randolph stated that while the oral arguments lasted more than an hour, the state Supreme Court would attempt to make a quick decision on the matter but that it was addressing “difficult” issues. Justice Kenny Griffis was not present at the oral arguments. It is not clear whether Griffis will be participating in a ruling._x000D