Democrats Say Reappointments Unconstitutional
A recent lawsuit filed in Fairfax County Circuit Court accuses Gov. Glenn Youngkin and Attorney General Jason Miyares of violating the Virginia Constitution by seating university board appointees who had been rejected by the General Assembly — including members of the Virginia Military Institute’s board of visitors.
The case, Lucas v. Stimson, was filed by a group of senior Democratic lawmakers led by Senate President Pro Tempore L. Louise Lucas and Majority Leader Scott Surovell. Sen. Jennifer Carroll Foy, a VMI alumna from the class of 2003, is also listed as a plaintiff. The legal action seeks to bar the disputed board members from serving and to affirm the General Assembly’s constitutional authority over gubernatorial appointments.
Among the named defendants is VMI board of visitors President Teddy Gottwald, class of 1983, who is listed in the lawsuit in his official ca- contnued from page 1
Lawsuit
pacity. The other two defendants are the rectors of the boards of visitors of George Mason University and the University of Virginia. The lawsuit requests that the heads of these boards be prohibited from recognizing the appointments of eight people to the three boards.
The VMI appointees in question are Jonathan Hartsock, Stephen Reardon and José J. Suárez.
At the center of the conflict is a June 9 vote by the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee to reject eight of Governor Youngkin’s appointees to the governing boards of VMI, the University of Virginia, and George Mason University. The vote passed 8–4 along party lines.
Following the rejection, the governor’s office and Attorney General Miyares issued public statements and formal guidance instructing the universities to seat the appointees anyway — arguing that the appointments could lawfully proceed during the legislature’s recess.
This prompted an immediate outcry from Senate leadership, who claim that the executive branch knowingly overstepped its constitutional bounds.
“The Governor’s actions constitute an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative authority and a violation of the separation of powers,” the complaint reads.
Though the lawsuit affects three major Virginia universities, VMI’s inclusion in the case adds weight given the Institute’s recent political entanglements. The appointment of Board President Teddy Gottwald — a top donor to Republican campaigns and a figure closely aligned with Youngkin — has already drawn controversy. VMI’s governance, particularly regarding DEI policies and alumni influence, has been a recurring flashpoint in Virginia’s broader culture war over higher education.
Sen. Carroll Foy’s participation as both a plaintiff and a VMI graduate further underlines the school’s symbolic and legal role in this dispute.
At the heart of the lawsuit is a clash between two provisions in the Virginia Constitution: Article V, Section 7 and Article V, Section 11.
Youngkin and Miyares have pointed to Section 7, which allows governors to make temporary “recess appointments” when the legislature is not in session. These appointments expire 30 days after the General Assembly reconvenes unless formally confirmed.
But the plaintiffs argue that this power is clearly and categorically limited by Section 11, which states: “No person appointed to any office by the Governor, whose appointment is subject to confirmation by the General Assembly… shall enter upon, or continue in, office after the General Assembly shall have refused to confirm his appointment, nor shall such person be eligible for reappointment during the recess of the General Assembly.”
The lawsuit contends that by reappointing the same individuals during recess, the governor and attorney general directly violated this restriction.
The plaintiffs are asking the court for both declaratory relief, which is a formal ruling that the appointments are unconstitutional; and injunctive relief, which would prevent the contested board members from continuing to serve.
If successful, the lawsuit could result in the removal of Youngkin’s disputed appointees and reassert the Senate’s power to block gubernatorial appointments. It would also deliver a sharp rebuke to the executive branch and could have ripple effects for future governors of either party.
No responses have been filed in the case.
