Julie P. Magee and Thomas L. White, Jr., in Their Official Capacities as Commissioner of Revenue and Comptroller Of…

Summary

The court held that later amendments and annual codification did not moot the plaintiffs’ procedural challenges to the Alabama Accountability Act, and that those challenges presented justiciable constitutional questions rather than political questions. On the merits, it held that the Act did not violate the original-purpose, three-readings, or single-subject requirements, and concluded that tax credits are not legislative appropriations for purposes of the constitutional restriction on appropriations to institutions outside state control. The supplied opinion is truncated before the court’s final disposition is shown. Justice Murdock, dissenting, would have found violations of the original-purpose and three-readings requirements and expressed concern about the operation of the appropriation restriction; Justice Shaw concurred in part and concurred in the result on several issues, while Justice Bryan concurred except as to two parts, where he concurred in the result.