text:
    136 A.3d 126
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Laquanta CHAPMAN, Appellant.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued Sept. 10, 2015.
    Resubmitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    Decided March 29, 2016.

      J. Michael Farrell, Esq., P.J. Redmond, Esq., Chester County Public Defender’s Office, for Laquanta Chapman.
    Patrick Carmody, Esq., Nicholas J. Casenta Jr., Esq., Chester County District Attorney’s Office, Amy Zapp, Harrisburg, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
    SAYLOR, CJ., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, JJ.
   OPINION

Chief Justice SAYLOR.

This is a capital direct appeal.

On October 30, 2008, Appellant shot and killed his sixteen-year-old neighbor, Aaron Turner, in the basement of Appellant’s residence. Subsequently, with the assistance of his younger cousin, Bryan Bird, Appellant dismembered the victim’s body and disposed of the remains in the trash.

Weeks later, law enforcement officers investigating the sale of illicit drugs from Appellant’s premises obtained a warrant to search them for evidence of drug activity. In the course of the ensuing search, police discovered an abundance of residual, physical evidence from the killing and dismemberment. Appellant was arrested and charged with murder and other crimes, and the Commonwealth tendered notice of an intention to pursue the death penalty.

At Appellant’s trial before a jury, the defense admitted that Appellant had perpetrated most of the crimes with which he was charged (other than murder). See, e.g., N.T., Nov. 1, 2012, at 52-63; N.T., Nov. 8, 2012, at 98. In line with these concessions, the defense acknowledged that the victim had been killed in the basement of Appellant’s residence, see, e.g., N.T., Nov. 1, 2012, at 149, and that Appellant “was involved in cleaning up the crime scene.” N.T., Nov. 8, 2012, at 98. The defense contended, however, that there was reasonable doubt concerning the identity of the shooter and attempted to shift the blame to Bryan Bird.

The jury nonetheless convicted Appellant of first-degree murder and other offenses and returned a death verdict in a separate penalty proceeding. Post-sentence motions were filed and denied, and this direct appeal followed.

Guilt Phase

Although Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his first-degree murder conviction, this Court automatically undertakes such review in capital direct appeals.

In the present case, the only element of first-degree murder ever in question pertained to identity, since the deliberate, malicious killing and subsequent dismemberment of Aaron Turner were amply established by physical evidence. The Commonwealth presented testimony from Bryan Bird that he was an eyewitness to Appellant’s perpetration of the killing, see, e.g., N.T., Nov. 5, 2012, at 36, and an inmate testified that, while in jail awaiting trial, Appellant confessed to having killed the victim. See N.T., Nov. 7, 2012, at 100-107. Such evidence, in and of itself, was plainly sufficient to support the jury’s determination. Moreover, the Commonwealth presented a wealth of corroborating circumstantial evidence, including Appellant’s attempts to destroy evidence and lies to police during their investigation, evidencing his consciousness of his guilt.

In his first guilt-phase claim for relief, Appellant asserts that the common pleas court erred when it denied a pretrial motion seeking to suppress evidence taken from his residence. Appellant styles this claim as follows: “Search of House Impermissible as Beyond the Breadth of a Search Warrant Describing Criminal Conduct in a Detached Garage.” Brief for Appellant at 18 (emphasis adjusted). Consistent with this framing, Appellant’s argument assumes that the affidavit of probable cause supporting the initial warrant described criminal conduct only in the garage. See, e.g., id. (depicting the underlying circumstances as involving “[a] search warrant issued 10/22/2008, describing criminal conduct (drug sales) from a garage building detached from a home”); id. at 19 (suggesting that “the search warrant affidavit (controlled drug buys from garage) did not describe conduct in the house”). While indicating that it is permissible to extend an authorized search of a residence to the curtilage, Appellant contends that such an approach should not operate in the reverse, particularly given the decisions of this Court allocating to residences the strongest protection from unreasonable searches. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Brion, 539 Pa. 256, 257, 652 A.2d 287, 287 (1994) (characterizing the right to privacy in one’s domain as “sacrosanct”). Appellant also suggests that a particular description of the place to be searched, in terms of the residence, was lacking in the relevant search warrant. See Brief for Appellant at 19.

A primary flaw in this argument is that it is materially misleading. Initially, the search warrant under review expressly identified the premises to be searched as follows:

35 Chester Avenue is described as a single family dwelling, twin with white siding and yellow door/shutters.
Detached garage is located to the rear of the residence having white shingles.

Application for Search Warrant and Authorization at 1 (emphasis added). Thus, the residence was very plainly encompassed within the warrant.

Moreover, although Appellant is correct that the affidavit of probable cause describes controlled drug purchases occurring in the garage, the affiants also specifically sought permission to search the residence based, inter alia, upon attestations that: the affiants had particularized knowledge and experience with drug trafficking; “it is common for larger-scale narcotic traffickers to secrete contraband, proceeds of narcotics sales, and records of drug transactions in secure locations within their residences”; “narcotics traffickers commonly have in their possession, that is on their person, at their residence and/or their businesses, firearms”; and “three individual sources ... relayed that over the past month the foot traffic and suspected drug activity which had been taking place from the garage ... has moved to the rear door of the residence which is where all of the activity is now taking place.” Id. at 3, 5, 8 (affidavit of probable cause). Upon consideration of this and other information within the four comers of the affidavit of probable cause, the attesting officers indicated:

[Biased on your affiants’ experience and training, and the facts described herein, it is you affiants’ opinion that there is ongoing drug trafficking taking place inside the residence listed above. Your Affiants believe that there is a fair likelihood that [the] aforementioned residence will contain those items listed in the section titled Items to be searched for and seized within this document.

Id. at 8 (emphasis added).

Judicial review concerning whether a search warrant is supported by probable cause is generally accomplished via a close review of the affidavit, see Commonwealth v. Coleman, 574 Pa. 261, 271, 830 A.2d 554, 560 (2003), and certainly, there is a wealth of precedent governing such review as it concerns information received from unidentified persons and confidential informants. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Luv, 557 Pa. 570, 576, 735 A.2d 87, 90 (1999) (“A determination of probable cause based upon information received from a confidential informant depends upon the informant’s reliability and basis of knowledge viewed in a common sense, non-technical manner.”). Appellant’s presentation, however, does not implicate an examination of this line of precedent, since he offers no argumentation assailing the quality or veracity of the information collected by the affiants.

In summary, Appellant’s position that the search warrant was directed only to the garage and described only criminal conduct in such location is facially meritless.

Next, Appellant complains that his constitutionally protected refusal to voluntarily surrender a DNA sample to investigators was wrongfully used against him at trial.

By way of background, in his examination of a detective at trial, the prosecutor elicited a statement that Bryan Bird and another suspect had voluntarily provided DNA samples to police but that Appellant had refused to do so. See N.T., Nov. 5, 2012, at 123. Appellant’s counsel advanced a general objection, and the trial court, acting sua sponte, cautioned the jurors as follows:

Ladies and gentlemen, the defendant is required to provide no evidence whatsoever in this matter. And I instructed you earlier on the presumption of innocence. And I instructed you about the obligation of the defense to provide no evidence, only if it deems appropriate to do so.
And the fact that any requests were made of [Appellant] to do anything in this matter is completely irrelevant. He is under no obligation to provide any evidence, either during the course of the trial or during the course of the investigation.

Id. at 123-124.

Despite this instruction, the defense then moved for a mistrial on the basis that the refusal was “clearly an assertion of the right to silence.” Id. at 124. The court denied this motion but, anticipating that the prosecution intended to display to the jury a videotape of the police interview with Appellant, directed the prosecutor to redact references to Appellant’s refusal to furnish a DNA sample. See id. at 125. Although the tape was redacted to remove some references to such refusal, apparently one was missed, see id. at 135-36, which proceeded as follows:

[Detective]: And you’re telling me I should check everybody’s DNA but I can’t even get your DNA. You understand like how I’m supposed to check everybody’s?
[Appellant]: No I’m saying like.
[Detective]: You want me to eliminate you from stuff.
[Appellant]: Yeah.
[Detective]: Well.
[Another Detective]: You want me to check DNA on other people that stay in the house but the person that owns the house....

Id., Ex. C-37 at 153.

The defense again moved for a mistrial, see id. at 135, and the trial court denied that motion as well, see id. at 137-38. Instead, the court offered to repeat its cautionary instruction, which the defense refused. See id. Later, however, in its opinion under Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a), the court took the position that Appellant’s challenge was a “red herring,” since references to Appellant’s refusal were admissible into evidence given that the statement was voluntarily made. Commonwealth v. Chapman, Nos. 2897-2009, 4895-2008, slip op. at 3-4 (C.P. Chester Mar. 9, 2015).

Presently, Appellant maintains that his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated. See, e.g., Brief for Appellant at 26 (“[A]ppellant here asserts that spotlighting the choice not to submit DNA ought to be treated just like any traditional self-incrimination protection.”). Appellant also offers a general allusion to due process. See id. (“It is constitutionally impermissible to make any suggestion or ask for any inference as the prosecutors here did, and the learned trial judge who permitted it to ripen into a death sentence violated appellant’s rights under the 14th Amendment right to [d]ue process in doing so.”). In response, the Commonwealth asserts, inter alia, that Appellant’s right against self-incrimination was never in issue, since DNA evidence is nontestimonial in nature. Cf. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 765, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1832-33, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) (holding that evidence garnered from a blood test is not protected by the Fifth Amendment because it is “neither [] testimony nor evidence relating to some communicative act or writing”).

Although Appellant’s focus on the Fifth Amendment may be misplaced, we find that the circumstances presented implicate a broader due process concern. In this regard, the admission of evidence of a refusal to consent to a warrantless search to demonstrate consciousness of guilt is problematic, as most jurisdictions hold (outside the context of implied-consent scenarios) that such admission unacceptably burdens an accused’s right to refuse consent.

Nevertheless, we find that the reference to Appellant’s refusal was harmless as it was not highlighted to the jury by the prosecutor; the trial court had issued an appropriate cautionary instruction and offered to repeat it; and Appellant’s consciousness of guilt relative to his many crimes was manifest in any event by virtue of his admitted conduct in destroying evidence and lying pervasively to police. See, e.g., supra note 2. Upon our review of the record as a whole, which presents strong direct and circumstantial evidence of Appellant’s guilt, we conclude that the reference simply did not make a difference in the verdict. See generally Commonwealth v. Story, 476 Pa. 391, 409, 383 A.2d 155, 164 (1978) (setting forth the standard governing harmless-error review).

Penalty Phase

Appellant presents several claims of trial court error at the penalty stage. Our review, however, centers upon the one which we find to be dispositive of the outcome of this appeal.

Appellant argues that the evidence offered by the Commonwealth in support of the sole aggravating circumstances pursued by the prosecution and found by the jury was insufficient. Appellant explains that the Commonwealth proceeded to a penalty hearing exclusively on the basis that Appellant had “a significant history of felony convictions involving the use or threat of violence to the person.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(9) (emphasis added). To support this aggravator, the prosecution adduced evidence that Appellant was convicted, in New Jersey, of two instances of aggravated assault as such offense is defined and administered in that state. See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:12-l(b)(3), (4). Appellant observes, however, that New Jersey does not denominate violations of its criminal statutes as “felonies,” but, rather, employs a grading scheme ranging from “a crime of the first degree” to “a crime of the fourth degree.” See, e.g., id. § 2C:43-6. Further, Appellant highlights that his convictions entailed the least of these denominations, fourth degree crimes, which carry a maximum sentence of up to eighteen months. See id. §§ 2C:12-l(b)(4), 2C:43-6(a)(4). It is Appellant’s core position that the New Jersey crimes cannot be considered felonies for purpose of the (d)(9) aggravator.

During the penalty phase, the trial court recognized that, based on the sentencing structure, Appellant’s New Jersey crimes simply were not felonies in Pennsylvania. See N.T., Nov. 13, 2012, at 10. Nevertheless, the court suggested that it might proceed under an equivalency test based on conduct. According to the court:

It would be conduct, not penalty. Because otherwise, you would allow the New Jersey legislature to regulate the equivalent grading in Pennsylvania based upon that legislature’s determination of what the appropriate penalty might be instead of Pennsylvania statute, instead of the Pennsylvania legislature.

Id. Subsequently, however, the court implemented a previous ruling that felony status, for purposes of the relevant aggravator, should be adjudged according to whether a crime was a common-law felony. See id. at 23-24.

In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Commonwealth relies substantially upon a footnote in Commonwealth v. Maxwell, 534 Pa. 23, 626 A.2d 499 (1993), in which the Court pronounced, rather cryptically, that “[a] felony is a felony no matter where it is committed.” Id. at 27 n. 4, 626 A.2d at 501 n. 4. While the Commonwealth concedes that New Jersey does not use the term “felony” in classifying crimes, it maintains that “the crime[s] of which the defendant was convicted of in New Jersey have been considered felonies by courts in various contexts.” Brief for Appellee at 45. In this regard, the Commonwealth references Zaborowski v. PSP, 892 A.2d 68 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006), in which the Commonwealth Court found no error in the State Police’s classification of several New Jersey crime convictions as felony convictions for purposes of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act of 1995, 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6101-6127. Zaborowski, 892 A.2d at 72-74. Finally, the Commonwealth endorses the trial court’s rationale adopting a common-law litmus for felonies, for purposes of the (d)(9) aggravator.

The issue of statutory construction before the Court presents a question of law over which our review is plenary.

In Commonwealth v. Robinson, 583 Pa. 358, 877 A.2d 433 (2005), this Court determined, for purposes of the aggravating circumstance set forth at Section 9711(d)(6)—pertaining where a defendant has committed a killing while in perpetration of a felony—that the definition of “felony” should be taken from the Crimes Code. See id. at 379-81, 877 A.2d at 445-46 (relying upon Commonwealth v. Walker, 540 Pa. 80, 102-03, 656 A.2d 90,101 (1995)).

As clarified in the Joint State Government Commission’s Comment, Section 106 of the Crimes Code delineates that offenses that are not specifically denominated felonies or misdemeanors in the Crimes Code, but which carry maximum sentences of five years or less, are classified as misdemeanors; whereas, crimes not specifically denominated felonies or misdemeanors in the Crimes Code, but which carry maximum sentences of more than five years, are classified as felonies. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 106(b)(4), (6), Joint St. Gov’t Comm’n Comment. Furthermore, the statute specifies that “[a]ny offense declared by law to constitute a crime, without specification of the class thereof, is a misdemeanor of the second degree, if the maximum sentence does not make it a felony under this section.” Id. § 106(d). Finally, Section 106 also provides that “[a]n offense hereafter defined by any statute other than this title shall be classified as provided in this section.” Id. § 106(e).

Regardless of what was said in Maxwell’s cryptic footnote, the Pennsylvania Legislature has generally established a bright-line division between felonies and misdemeanors, in the absence of a specific designation within the Crimes Code, hinging on the permissibility of a term of incarceration greater than five years. This Court’s Robinson decision expressly requires application of this test in the assessment of the in-perpetration-of-a-felony aggravator, and we can discern no reason why the concept of “felony” should be different as applied to the (d)(9) aggravating circumstance.

Moreover, this Court is obliged to maintain a narrowing construction relative to imposition of capital punishment. See, e.g., Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 877, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 2742, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983) (holding that, to satisfy the constitutional standard derived from Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), an aggravating circumstance “must genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty and must reasonably justify the imposition of a more severe sentence on the defendant as compared to others found guilty of murder”). Along these lines, we simply do not believe that the Legislature intended for the five-year litmus to apply to offenses committed in Pennsylvania, but to disparately implement some looser, common-law construct pertaining to crimes committed in other states. Furthermore, the conduct-based equivalency regime alluded to by the trial court also would generate factual issues which would need to be resolved by jurors, not judges. We find no indication, on the face of the statute, that the General Assembly intended such a fact-driven inquiry to be undertaken.

The New Jersey crimes of which Appellant was convicted—per which the sentencing court was authorized to impose, at most, eighteen-month maximum terms—plainly do not qualify as felonies under Section 106 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code. We conclude, therefore, that they could not serve as the essential predicate for the (d)(9) aggravator, which turns upon a finding of a significant history of violent felony convictions. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(9).

Given that the (d)(9) aggravator was the sole aggravating circumstance presented to the jury, we are required to remand for imposition of a life sentence. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(h)(4) (“If the Supreme Court determines that the death penalty must be vacated because none of the aggravating circumstances are supported by sufficient evidence, then it shall remand for the imposition of a life imprisonment sentence.”).

The judgment of sentence of death is reversed, and the case is remanded to the common pleas court to effectuate the imposition of a life sentence. Jurisdiction is relinquished.

Justices BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY and WECHT join the opinion.

      . See, e.g., N.T., Nov. 2, 2012, at 11-29 (reflecting the testimony of a crime scene investigator that various blood-stained items of Appellant’s clothing were found in a garbage bag in Appellant’s residence, together with a .25 caliber shell casing); N.T., Nov. 7, 2012, at 192-200 (reflecting the attestation of a DNA expert to a very high probability that human tissue and blood found in the basement of Appellant’s residence and on clothing in garbage bags on the first floor were the victim’s).

      . Again, the evidence presented by the prosecution on both points was so strong that the defense conceded them. See, e.g., N.T., Nov. 8, 2012, at 98 (reflecting defense counsel’s concession, in his closing remarks to the jurors, that Appellant was "involved in cleaning up the crime scene”); id. at 104 (reflecting defense counsel’s assertion before the jury that Appellant "is one of the worst liars I’ve ever seen in my life”).

      . The trial court deemed the objection to have been waived in the absence of any reference to the playing of Appellant’s statement. We decline to enforce a blanket waiver relative to this claim, however, where Appellant objected to references to his refusal; the court directed that the videotape of his interview should be redacted to exclude such references; and Appellant objected promptly to a missed reference after the tape was played.

      . See, e.g., United States v. Runyan, 290 F.3d 223, 249 (5th Cir.2002) ("[T]he circuit courts that have directly addressed this question have unanimously held that a defendant's refusal to consent to a warrantless search may not be presented as evidence of guilt.”); State v, Jones, 753 N.W.2d 677, 687 (Minn.2008) (“It is a violation of the defendant’s right to due process for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant’s failure to consent to a warrantless search.”); Bargas v. State, 489 P.2d 130, 132 (Alaska 1971) ("It would make meaningless the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures if the exercise of that right were allowed to become a badge of guilt.”); accord Commonwealth v. Tillery, 417 Pa.Super. 26, 35, 611 A.2d 1245, 1250 (1992) (citing Commonwealth v. Welch, 401 Pa.Super. 393, 398, 585 A.2d 517, 520 (1991)).
      As an aside, such treatment contrasts with the response in scenarios in which a defendant resists providing a sample during the execution of a duly authorized search warrant. See, e.g., United States v. Ashburn, 76 F.Supp.3d 401, 444-46 (E.D.N.Y.2014).

      . This claim was preserved, even in the absence of a specific objection during the penalty phase, upon the common pleas court’s denial of a pretrial motion to quash the aggravator. See Pa.R.E. 103(b). In any event, the defense renewed the objection in the sentencing proceedings. See N.T., Nov. 13, 2012, at 2.

      . In responsive opinions, this author, Justice Baer, and former Justice Nigro advanced the position that the (d)(6) aggravator should be limited to six major felonies that are specifically enumerated in a statutory definition of "perpetration of a felony,” which is presently reposited in the section of the Crimes Code addressing the substantive crime of murder, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(d). See Robinson, 583 Pa. at 392-99, 877 A.2d at 453-58 (Saylor, J., concurring and dissenting, joined in relevant part by Nigro, J.); id. at 387, 877 A.2d at 450 (Baer, J„ concurring and dissenting). That position, however, did not command a majority.

      . We believe that the common pleas court’s reservation about other state legislatures determining felony status when implementing their own policy-based judgments concerning penalties is of lesser concern than application of a disparate common-law or equivalency construct pertaining to out-of-state offenses. Moreover, and again, at least after rejection of the minority position in Robinson that the peipetration-of-a-felony aggravator was subject to a discrete statutory formulation, see supra note 6, we discern no evidence that the General Assembly intended for different conceptions of the term "felony” to apply as between Sections 9711(d)(6) and (d)(9).

      . In some recent decisions, this Court has transferred death-penalty appeals to the Superior Court, which administers as-of-right direct appellate review in non-capital cases, when it has become clear in our own review that a death sentence is unavailable. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Gibson, 592 Pa. 411, 418, 925 A.2d 167, 171 (2007). Here, however, the guilt-phase review is not burdensome and was complete as of the time it became clear that imposition of a life sentence was required. Therefore, and to promote efficiency, we have completed the guilt-phase review, above.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice TODD. Justice DONOHUE, Justice DOUGHERTY, Chief Justice SAYLOR,

license: Public Domain

text:
    136 A.3d 134
    Jessica MARKHAM, Victoria Markham, Jesse Charles, Pennsylvania Homecare Association, United Cerebral Palsy of Pennsylvania v. Thomas W. WOLF, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Human Services, Office of Long Term Living. Appeal of President Pro Tempore Senator Joseph B. Scarnati, III, Majority Leader Senator Jake Corman, Majority Whip Senator John Gordner and Majority Appropriations Chairman Senator Pat Browne, on Behalf of the Pennsylvania Senate Majority Caucus, Possible Intervenors. David W. Smith and Donald Lambrecht v. Governor Thomas W. Wolf, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Human Services. Appeal of President Pro Tempore Senator Joseph B. Scarnati, III, Majority Leader Senator Jake Corman, Majority Whip Senator John Gordner and Majority Appropriations Chairman Senator Pat Browne, on Behalf of the Pennsylvania Senate Majority Caucus, Possible Intervenors.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued Oct. 7, 2015.
    Resubmitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    Decided March 29, 2016.

      Joel L. Frank, Esq., Maureen Murphy McBride, Esq., James C. Sargent Jr., Esq., Scot Russel Withers, Esq., Lamb McErlane, PC, West Chester, for President Pro Tempore Senator Joseph B. Scarnati, III, et al.
    Bruce Richard Beemer, Esq., Kenneth Lawson Joel, Esq., Sean Andrew Kirkpatrick, Esq., Maryanne Mueller Lewis, Esq., Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, Denise Joy Sxnyler, Esq., Philadelphia, for Thomas W. Wolf in Official Capacity as Gov. of Comm, of PA, Dept, of Human Svcs., Ofc. of Long Term Living.
    Jason Gantcliffe Benion, Esq., John Walter Dornberger, Esq., Cynthia A. Haines, Esq., James John Kutz, Esq., Paula Gayle Sanders, Esq., Post & Schell, P.C., Harrisburg, for Jessica Markham, Victoria Markham, Jesse Charles, PA Homecare Assoc., United Cerebral Palsy of PA.
    David Randel Osborne, Esq., for David W. Smith and Donald Lambreeht.
    SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, JJ.

      . In the interim, the Commonwealth Court postponed oral argument before the court en banc, which, as noted above, was scheduled to be heard in September 2015.

   OPINION

Justice TODD.

In this interlocutory appeal, we consider whether state legislators have standing to intervene in a challenge to the issuance of an executive order concerning direct care health workers. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that, in these circumstances, they do not because the legislators’ interests purportedly impacted by the executive order do not involve unique legislative prerogatives, but, rather, are interests common to the general citizenry which only remotely impact the legislators’ right to act as legislators. Thus, we affirm the order of the Commonwealth Court denying the legislators’ request to intervene.

The background to this appeal is uncontested. On February 27, 2015, Governor Tom Wolf issued Executive Order 2015-05, “Participant-Directed Home Care Services” (“Executive Order 2015-05” or “Executive Order”), which focuses on individuals who receive, and workers who provide, in-home medical and personal care. The Executive Order establishes, inter alia, an advisory group to ensure the quality of long-term personal assistance services to seniors and persons with disabilities, and a process by which workers who provide such care, and who are employed by the individuals they serve, may obtain a designated representative for discussions with the Secretary of Human Resources regarding various matters including, inter alia, wages and health and retirement benefits.

On April 6, 2015, Jessica Markham, Victoria Markham, Jesse Charles, Pennsylvania Home Care Association, and United Cerebral Palsy of Pennsylvania filed a Petition for Review in the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(1), naming as respondents Appellees Governor Wolf and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Human Services, and the Office of Long Term Living. These petitioners asserted that Executive Order 2015-05 establishes organizational labor rights for domestic home care workers, but was issued without authorization and conflicts with existing Commonwealth labor laws—specifically, the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act, and the Public Employe Relations Act. Similarly, on the same date, David Smith and Donald Lambrecht (collectively, with Jessica Markham, Victoria Markham, Jesse Charles, Pennsylvania Home Care Association, and United Cerebral Palsy of Pennsylvania, “Petitioners”) also filed a Petition for Review in the Commonwealth Court, naming Appellees as respondents. They similarly challenged Executive Order 2015-05.

On April 20, 2015, Senate President Pro Tempore Joseph Scarnati, III, Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman, Senate Majority Whip John Gordner, and Senate Majority Appropriations Chairman Pat Browne, on behalf of the Pennsylvania Senate Majority Caucus (“Appellants”), filed an Application for Relief Seeking to Intervene (“Application to Intervene”) in both actions, claiming Executive Order 2015-05 was an unauthorized attempt by the Governor to exercise legislative power in violation of the separation of powers doctrine.

Two days later, the Commonwealth Court conducted a hearing on Petitioners’ request for a preliminary injunction, conducted by President Judge Dante Pellegrini. Initially, the court rejected Appellants’ attempt to directly intervene at the preliminary injunction stage. However, the court issued an order enjoining Governor Wolf from entering into any memorandum of understanding pursuant to Executive Order 2015-OS until disposition of the matter on the merits, establishing an expedited schedule for the filing of briefs on preliminary objections and cross-motions for summary relief, and listing the matter for en banc argument before the Commonwealth Court in September 2015.

On May 28, 2015, President Judge Pellegrini heard oral argument on Appellants’ Application to Intervene, and, by a single judge opinion, he denied Appellants’ application on June 3, 2015. Noting the traditional test for standing—requiring an individual to be aggrieved, i.e., to have a substantial, direct, and immediate interest in the outcome of the litigation— President Judge Pellegrini considered caselaw analyzing standing for legislators. Observing that legislative standing-rests upon a concrete injury suffered in the legislator’s official capacity, rather than a mere generalized grievance about the conduct of government that all citizens share, President Judge Pellegrini concluded that the interests impinged by the Governor were not unique, legislative interests, but, rather, were interests common to the general citizenry. In reaching this conclusion, he determined that, at its core, Appellants’ “sole basis for seeking intervention is that the Governor’s Executive Order is illegal and that every time he takes an illegal action, he violates separation-of-powers principles because he is not enforcing the laws that the [Appellants] believe are proper.” Markham v. Commonwealth, 176 M.D.2015, at 9 (Pa.Cmwlth. filed June 3, 2015). The judge further explained that legislators do not have standing just because the Governor’s action is purportedly illegal, and the General Assembly may “offer legislation that will preclude or vitiate the Governor’s action.” Id. Nevertheless, Appellants were permitted to participate, and subsequently participated, in the matter as amicus curiae. Id. at 10 n. 8.

On July 6, 2015, Appellants filed a notice of appeal with our Court, as well as jurisdictional statements and applications seeking expedited consideration of the appeals. On August 10, 2015, our Court noted probable jurisdiction and granted the applications for relief seeking expedited consideration. Oral argument was held before our Court on October 7, 2015.

The issue before our Court, as stated by Appellants, is “Whether legislative standing exists to challenge an executive order the origin of which has neither been authorized by the Constitution nor promulgated pursuant to statutory authority, thus constituting a violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine?” Appellants’ Brief at 5. As this issue raises a pure question of law, our standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary. In re Hickson, 573 Pa. 127, 821 A.2d 1238, 1242 (2003).

Appellants maintain that Executive Order 2015-05 is an “unqualified and improper intrusion upon one branch by another,” and constitutes a “discernable and palpable infringement” on the legislators’ authority as legislators. Appellants’ Brief at 13. Analyzing prior caselaw on legislative standing, Appellants offer that legislators have “standing to challenge executive actions when specific powers unique to their functions under the Constitution are diminished or interfered with.” Appellants’ Brief at 16 (citing Wilt v. Beal, 26 Pa.Cmwlth. 298, 363 A.2d 876, 876 (1976)). Stated another way, they assert that generalized grievances about the conduct of government do not bestow standing, but that claims that assert a legislator’s vote or official authority has been impaired or nullified are sufficient to do so. Fumo v. City of Philadelphia, 601 Pa. 322, 972 A.2d 487, 502 (2009) (recognizing standing to permit a legislator to obtain redress for an injury suffered in his official capacity). According to Appellants, they have standing for the same reasons presented in Fumo, as the Governor violated the separation-of-powers doctrine by infringing upon their exclusive law-making authority and usurping the power of the General Assembly. Appellants’ Brief at 18. Appellants further outline various types of executive orders, categorizing Executive Order 2015-05 as implementing law, and argue that only executive orders that are authorized by the Pennsylvania Constitution or promulgated pursuant to statutory authority are enforceable. Appellants contend that Executive Order 2015-05 creates law by allowing direct care health providers a process by which to seek representation and collectively bargain. This, according to Appellants, is neither authorized by the Constitution nor by statute, and violates the separation-of-powers doctrine by allowing the Governor to “circumvent” the General Assembly’s exclusive legislative function. Appellants’ Brief at 11. Appellants claim Executive Order 2015-05 effectively denies every member of the General Assembly the opportunity to vote on whether direct care health providers may organize and collectively bargain—a procedure Appellants claim is not currently provided for in our labor laws. Contrary to President Judge Pellegrini’s assessment, Appellants assert they are not contending that they have standing every time the Governor does something that is allegedly illegal, but, rather, that legislative standing is appropriate when the Governor issues an executive order that is neither constitutionally nor statutorily authorized, and, thus, acts in violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine. Thus, Appellants seek reversal of the Commonwealth Court’s order denying them intervenor status.

Appellees counter that Appellants’ challenge to Executive Order 2015-06 is merely a generalized complaint that the Governor violated the law; thus, Appellants do not satisfy the requirements for standing. Specifically, Appellees first note that, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, in order to intervene, individuals must have standing, Pa.R.C.P. 2327(3), (4), and to establish standing, one must have an interest that is substantial, direct, and immediate. Pointing to Fumo, Appellees offer that legislators enjoy standing when “a discemable and palpable infringement on their authority as legislators” is present, as compared to a general grievance about the correctness of governmental conduct, about which they do not have standing. Appellees’ Brief at 16 (quoting Fumo, 972 A.2d at 501). Similarly, pointing to Wilt, Appellees maintain that, once a vote has been duly recorded and the bill signed into law, a legislator has no standing to sue in his capacity as a legislator. Appellees’ Brief at 16-17 (citing Wilt, 363 A.2d at 881). Appellees outline federal decisions which they assert deny standing to legislators who claim that an executive action unconstitutionally usurped their power to legislate, but did not prevent the legislators from voting. Appellees’ Brief at 17-20 (citing, inter alia, Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 814, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 138 L.Ed.2d 849 (1997), and Goode v. City of Philadelphia, 539 F.3d 311, 316 (3d Cir. 2008)). Thus, according to Appellees, to warrant standing, the injury must be to powers unique to the legislature. Applying this standard, Appellees contend that Appellants merely raise a generalized grievance that Executive Order 2015-05 violates state law, and this does not implicate the legislators’ power to vote, either by preventing them from voting on legislation or by prohibiting them from passing legislation in the future. Finally, Appellees warn that to find standing here would give Appellants an unlimited ability to challenge any action or inaction by an official or employee of the executive branch, simply by framing the issue as a violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine. Thus, Appellees seek affirmance of the Commonwealth Court’s decision.

Initially, it is important to clarify the discrete issue which is before us in this appeal. Whether Executive Order 2015-05 is unconstitutional or in conflict with existing labor and health care laws is not before our Court. Rather, the only issue before us is whether Appellants were properly denied interve-nor status, which, as discussed below, turns on whether they satisfy our standing requirements. Thus, as there is no question that Appellants otherwise properly sought to intervene, or that an intervening party must establish standing, we begin our analysis with a review of general principles regarding standing.

In Pennsylvania, a party to litigation must establish as a threshold matter that he or she has standing to bring an action. Stilp v. Commonwealth, 596 Pa. 62, 940 A.2d 1227, 1233 (2007). Standing in Pennsylvania is a jurisprudential matter. City of Philadelphia v. Commonwealth, 575 Pa. 542, 838 A.2d 566, 577 (2003). In our Court’s landmark decision on standing, we explained that a person who is not adversely impacted by the matter he or she is litigating does not enjoy standing to initiate the court’s dispute resolution machinery. William Penn Parking Garage v. City of Pittsburgh, 464 Pa. 168, 346 A.2d 269, 280-81 (1975) (plurality). This is consistent with our jurisprudential approach that eschews advisory or abstract opinions, but, rather, requires the resolution of real and concrete issues. As we explained in In re Hickson, 821 A.2d at 1243, the party to the legal action must be “aggrieved.”

In determining whether a party is aggrieved, courts consider whether the litigant has a substantial, direct, and immediate interest in the matter. To have a substantial interest, the concern in the outcome of the challenge must surpass “the common interest of all citizens in procuring obedience to the law.” Id. An interest is direct if it is an interest that mandates demonstration that the matter “caused harm to the party’s interest.” Id. Finally, the concern is immediate “if that causal connection is not remote or speculative.” City of Philadelphia, 838 A.2d at 577. The “keystone to standing in these terms is that the person must be negatively impacted in some real and direct fashion.” Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Commonwealth, 585 Pa. 196, 888 A.2d 655, 660 (2005).

Standing for legislators claiming an institutional injury is no different than traditional standing and, in order for legislators to bring a particular challenge, the legislators must satisfy the prudential standing criteria offered above. Indeed, our Court in Pittsburgh Palisades shied away from a special category of standing for legislators. Id. at 662 (“To be clear, by our decision today, we are in no way creating or espousing a special category of standing for legislators.”); see also id. at 664 (Saylor, J., dissenting) (cautioning against the creation of distinct legislator standing apart from citizen-taxpayer standing).

Thus, with these general tenets of standing in hand, we turn to consider our Commonwealth’s caselaw applying these principles as they relate to legislators. Specifically, almost 40 years ago, in its foundational decision in Wilt, the Commonwealth Court addressed what was then an issue of first impression regarding the standing of a legislator. There, William Wilt, a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, sought to enjoin Frank Beal, the Secretary of Public Welfare, and Grace Sloan, the State Treasurer, from operating the recently completed Altoona Geriatric Center as a mental-health-care facility, and to recoup monies expended in the purportedly improper operation of the center. Writing for the court, then-Commonwealth Court judge, later federal district judge, Glenn Mencer first noted federal standing decisions and concluded that they were in general agreement with the principles of standing in Pennsylvania. Reviewing federal decisions involving standing for legislators, the court noted that state senators were entitled to standing to challenge an alleged illegal tie-breaking vote cast by the lieutenant governor because the legislators had a “plain, direct and adequate interest in maintaining the effectiveness of their votes.” Wilt, 363 A.2d at 880 (quoting Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 438, 59 S.Ct. 972, 83 L.Ed. 1385 (1939)). Similarly, the court noted an individual senator had standing to challenge a purported “pocket veto” on the ground he was being denied his right to vote for an attempted override of the veto. Id. at 881 (citing Kennedy v. Sampson, 511 F.2d 430 (D.C.Cir.1974)). Conversely, the court observed legislators have been denied standing when merely claiming an action impaired the effectiveness of legislation for which they had an opportunity to vote, and for which their vote was duly registered. Id. (citing Metcalf v. National Petroleum Council, 407 F.Supp. 257 (D.D.C.1976)),

After consideration of this caselaw, the Commonwealth Court found what emerged was “the principle that legislators, as legislators, are granted standing to challenge executive actions when specific powers unique to their functions under the Constitution are diminished or interfered with. Once, however, votes which they are entitled to make have been cast and duly counted, their interest as legislators ceases.” Id. The court offered a hypothetical of such a deprivation through the duty of the Senate to approve or disapprove of certain gubernatorial appointments, and opined that interference with the performance of this duty would be an injury to the members sufficient to give standing. Applying this standard to the facts of the case, the court noted that Wilt’s complaint was that “the purpose of the bill for which he had voted has been frustrated, thus, depriving him of the effectiveness of his vote.” Id. The court rejected that argument, holding that once “Wilt’s vote had been duly counted and the bill signed into law, his connection with the transaction as a legislator was at an end.” Id. (emphasis original).

Three years later, in Zemprelli v. Thornburgh, 47 Pa.Cmwlth. 43, 407 A.2d 102 (1979), the Commonwealth Court found Senator Edward Zemprelli had standing to enforce the constitutional provision requiring Governor Richard Thorn-burgh to submit to the Senate nominees to fill vacancies in offices within 90 days of the date the vacancy arose. The senator alleged that the Governor’s failure to submit such nominees to the Senate was improper, as it deprived the senators of their right and duty to advise and consent with respect to the appointment of incumbents of public office. Governor Thornburgh filed preliminary objections arguing, inter alia, that Senator Zemprelli lacked standing to bring the action. Citing Wilt for its protection-of-the-right-to-vote standing standard, as well as the Wilt court’s hypothetical regarding a senator’s standing to seek approval or disapproval of gubernatorial appointments, Judge David Craig, writing for the Commonwealth Court, found the standing question turned on whether the Governor had a legal duty to submit nominations to the Senate within a given time period. After determining that the nomination provision was indeed mandatory, the court reasoned that the Governor’s failure to act deprived the senator of his legal interest to advise and consent, and, thus, it conferred standing upon the senator. As in Wilt, the Commonwealth Court in Zemprelli focused on whether a legislator’s right to vote, or to directly participate in a matter, had been impeded.

Thereafter, in another standing decision involving, among others, Senator Zemprelli, our Court concluded that five senators had standing to challenge the computation of the constitutional majority of Senate members required for the confirmation of LeGree Daniels as a member of the State Tax Equalization Board. Zemprelli v. Daniels, 496 Pa. 247, 436 A.2d 1165 (1981). Specifically, Governor Thornburgh nominated Daniels by letter to the Senate on December 24, 1980. The nomination was initially held, but on January 27, 1981, reconsidered, and a vote taken. Under relevant statutory law, 71 P.S. § 67.1(d)(4), a majority of the members “elected” to the Senate were required to confirm Daniels’ appointment. Daniels received 25 confirmation votes and 22 votes rejecting her nomination. The President of the Senate, determining that Daniels received a constitutional majority vote, confirmed the appointment. Five senators who voted against the confirmation of Daniels filed a quo warranto action seeking to oust Daniels from her seat, arguing that the constitutional majority should have been computed on the basis of the total number of members “elected” to the Senate, 50—rather than on the number then in office, 48. The senators’ standing was challenged by the respondents, who alleged the senators were afforded the power to cast their vote in the Daniels’ nomination, and, having voted, their special interests ceased. The senators responded that they enjoyed standing as their effectiveness as legislators had been impaired, as their votes were diluted. Concluding that the voting process itself was under attack, the Commonwealth Court reasoned that at least the possibility existed that the senators’ interpretation of the constitutional majority requirement “has resulted in some cognizable injury to [the senators] in their legislative capacity,” and, thus, the court concluded that the senators had standing. Zemprelli, 436 A.2d at 1167.

On appeal, our Court agreed and rejected the argument that the senators’ special interests expired upon their voting on the matter. Indeed, Chief Justice Henry O’Brien, writing for our Court, noted the injury directly related to the voting process itself, and, in rejecting the claim that the senators’ interests end upon casting their votes, quipped, “[w]here the voting process itself is not, as here, under attack, this argument might be persuasive.” Id. We concluded that the Senate President’s interpretation of the constitutional majority requirement effectively diluted the legislators’ votes by impacting the voting process, and, thus, that the action presented a cognizable injury to the objecting senators in their legislative capacity.

Finally, perhaps the clearest articulation of the distinction between a matter implicating a legislator’s direct and substantial interest in the voting process or power to act and one that does not was articulated in our Court’s 2009 decision in Fumo. In that decision, authored by Chief Justice Ronald Castille, certain state legislators and the City Council of Philadelphia filed petitions for review seeking to challenge the decision of the City of Philadelphia Department of Commerce to issue a license to HSP Gaming, L.P. (“HSP”) to construct a portion of its gaming casino on submerged lands in the Delaware River. The state legislators raised two claims of injury. First, they asserted that the Department of Commerce did not have the authority to issue the construction license, but, rather, that the General Assembly had the sole and exclusive authority to grant a legally enforceable interest in, or the license for the use of, submerged lands belonging to the Commonwealth, including those in the Delaware River. Second, the state legislators argued that, in issuing the license, the Department of Commerce failed to adhere to certain property requirements, i.e., the license was issued in an unlawful manner.

As a threshold matter, our Court considered whether the state legislators had standing to bring the action. After review of state and federal caselaw, we explained that “legislators ... have been permitted to bring actions based upon their special status where there was a discernable and palpable infringement on their authority as legislators.” Fumo, 972 A.2d at 501. We stressed that such standing “has been recognized in limited instances in order to permit the legislator to seek redress for an injury the legislator ... claims to have suffered in his official capacity, rather than as a private citizen.” Id. We further opined that standing has been recognized in this context to protect a “legislator’s right to vote on legislation” and to protect against a “diminution or deprivation of the legislator’s ... power or authority,” but has not been recognized in actions “seeking redress for a general grievance about the correctness of governmental conduct.” Id.

We then turned to apply these tenets of standing to the state legislators’ two distinct assertions of injury. As to their first claim regarding the construction license authority, the state legislators maintained that they enjoyed standing because only the General Assembly held the licensing authority, and the Department of Commerce usurped that exclusive licensing authority; they asked our Court to uphold their sole right as legislators to cast a vote or otherwise make a decision on licensing the use of the Commonwealth’s submerged lands. Id. at 502. Our Court determined that, in light of the alleged exclusive right to vote on this specific licensure, this was the type of claim a legislator, qua legislator, had standing to pursue, as it “reflects the state legislators’ interest in maintaining the effectiveness of their legislative authority and their vote.” Id.

The state legislators’ second claim challenged the manner in which the license was issued, and, specifically, the breach of an alleged duty to require that HSP provide evidence of deed or title to the submerged lands. Our Court noted that this claim did not “demonstrate any interference with or diminution in the state legislators’ authority as members of the General Assembly,” and amounted to “nothing more than the state legislators’ disagreement with the way in which the Commerce Director interpreted and executed her duties on behalf of the City.” Id. Our Court reasoned that, as such, the legislators’ second claim was in the nature of a generalized grievance regarding the workings of government that all citizens shared, and, thus, the legislators lacked standing to pursue this claim.

More recent statements by our Court regarding legislative standing are consistent with the approach we took in Fumo. See Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth, 624 Pa. 219, 84 A.3d 1054, 1055 (2014) (rejecting standing to legislators as their interest implicated “neither a defense of the power or authority of their offices nor a defense of the potency of their right to vote,” but, rather, sought only to offer their perspective on the correctness of governmental conduct regarding the enactment of the relevant statute); accord Commonwealth v. Neiman, 624 Pa. 53, 84 A.3d 603, 609 n. 26 (2013) (noting that, while two Justices questioned intervenor status of the General Assembly because “legislators do not have standing to raise a claim in a legal proceeding that the effectiveness of a law which they have passed was impaired by a judicial decision,” the issue was not raised).

Recent federal caselaw in this area, which has rejected the assertion of institutional injury as a basis for legislative standing, is entirely consistent with our Commonwealth’s approach. Indeed, in Fumo, our Court found persuasive the Third Circuit’s decision in Common Cause of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 558 F.3d 249 (3d Cir.2009). Therein, the court found that a state legislator’s claims that the timing and method of the passage of a statute which increased the compensation of state legislators, executive officials, and judges deprived legislators due process and equal protection—premised on the denial of their ability to discuss, debate, and amend the bill before having to vote on the legislation—did not satisfy the standing requirement. As the claims were “ ‘abstract questions of wide public significance’ which amount to ‘generalized grievances,’ pervasively shared and most appropriately addressed in the representative branches,’ ” the court found the legislator lacked standing. Id. at 267 (quoting Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 474-75, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982)).

Even more relevantly, federal courts have denied standing to members of Congress who sought to enjoin executive action, and, specifically, implementation of an executive order which allegedly exceeded the President’s statutory and constitutional authority. See, e.g., Raines, 521 U.S. at 821-830, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (noting that it had never held that members of Congress had standing to assert an institutional injury against the executive, the United States Supreme Court concluded that individual congressmen lacked legislative standing to challenge the President’s authority under the Line Item Veto Act, as members of Congress possessed an adequate political remedy, and could, inter alia, vote to repeal the statute); Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C.Cir.2000) (relying upon Raines and determining members of Congress did not have standing to challenge the President’s alleged violation of the War Powers Resolution and the War Powers Clause of United States Constitution as Congress had legislative authority to stop the executive’s use of military force in Yugoslav campaign); Chenoweth v. Clinton, 181 F.3d 112 (D.C.Cir.1999) (concluding members of House of Representatives did not possess standing to challenge to the President’s creation of conservation program through executive order because dispute was susceptible to political resolution in that Congress could vote to terminate program); see generally United Presbyterian Church v. Reagan, 738 F,2d 1375, 1382 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding standing did not exist for member of House of Representatives where the legislator’s grievance consisted of “generalized, amorphous injuries due to ... the conduct of the Executive,” or “a generalized complaint that [member’s] effectiveness is diminished by allegedly illegal activities taking place outside the legislative forum” (citations omitted)).

What emanates from our Commonwealth’s caselaw, and the analogous federal caselaw, is that legislative standing is appropriate only in limited circumstances. Standing exists only when a legislator’s direct and substantial interest in his or her ability to participate in the voting process is negatively impacted, see Wilt, or when he or she has suffered a concrete impairment or deprivation of an official power or authority to act as a legislator, see Fumo (finding standing due to alleged usurpation of legislators’ authority to vote on licensing). These are injuries personal to the legislator, as a legislator. By contrast, a legislator lacks standing where he or she has an indirect and less substantial interest in conduct outside the legislative forum which is unrelated to the voting or approval process, and akin to a general grievance about the correctness of governmental conduct, resulting in the standing requirement being unsatisfied. Id. (rejecting standing where legislators’ interest was merely disagreement with way administrator interpreted or executed her duties, and did not interfere with legislators’ authority as members of the General Assembly).

Upon consideration, we find that Appellants are not aggrieved, as that term is understood in the standing context, because their interests in the underlying challenge to Executive Order 2015-05 are too indirect and insubstantial. Executive Order 2015-05 does not inhibit or in any way impact Appellants’ ability to propose, vote on, or enact legislation. The order does not touch upon the constitutional or legislative prerequisites for the voting upon and enacting of legislation. Nor does the order prevent Appellants from acting as legislators with respect to advising, consenting, issuing, or approving matters within their scope of authority as legislators. Rather, the legislators’ claim of aggrievement is only that the recently enacted Executive Order 2015-05 is a violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine, in that, they claim, it diminishes the effectiveness of, or is inconsistent with, prior-enacted legislation. Yet, these claims of injury reflect no impact on Appellants’ right to act as legislators, and are more, in our view, in the nature of a generalized grievance about the correctness of governmental conduct. Simply stated, the assertion that another branch of government—here, the executive branch through the Governor’s Executive Order—is diluting the substance of a previously-enacted statutory provision is not an injury which legislators, as legislators, have standing to pursue.

Indeed, taking the unprecedented step of allowing legislators standing to intervene in, or be a party to, any matter in which it is alleged that government action is inconsistent with existing legislation would entitle legislators to challenge virtually every interpretive executive order or action (or inaction). Similarly, it would seemingly permit legislators to join in any litigation in which a court might interpret statutory language in a manner purportedly inconsistent with legislative intent. Critically, Appellants offer no limiting principle which would permit their intervention in the instant matter, but constrain their ability to initiate litigation, seek declaratory relief, or to intervene in any matter which does not, under the principles we express today, impact them in their role of legislators.

Moreover, Appellants recognize there is comprehensive legislation on the topic which was enacted long ago, and, they do not suggest that they are in any way prevented from enacting future legislation in this area. Indeed, like our federal counterparts, we are leery to recognize such uncabined and broad-based standing for legislators, as separation-of-powers problems are inherent in legislative standing, and claims of institutional injury, such as those before us, are often “fully susceptible to political resolution.” Chenoweth, 181 F.3d at 116. Further, challengers exist who are, from a standing perspective, sufficiently impacted by the Governor’s issuance of Executive Order 2015-05, as amply demonstrated by the parties in this matter who include patients, direct care health workers, and institutional health care providers. Finally, Appellants were permitted to participate as amicus, and, thus, their voices will be heard on the merits of the controversy.

Accordingly, we hold that Appellants’ interests purportedly impinged by Executive Order 2015-05 are not directly or substantially related to unique legislative prerogatives, but, rather, are generalized interests in the conduct of government common to the general citizenry; thus, they do not satisfy the requirements of standing in these circumstances. Accordingly, we affirm the Commonwealth Court’s denial of Appellants’ Application to Intervene.

Justices BAER, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY and WECHT join the opinion.

Justice DONOHUE files a concurring opinion.

Justice DOUGHERTY files a concurring opinion.

Chief Justice SAYLOR files a dissenting opinion.

Justice DONOHUE,

concurring.

I join in the Majority’s decision to affirm the Commonwealth Court’s decision with respect to the present application for intervention. I write separately only to note my disagreement with the Majority’s inclusion in its analysis of this Court’s prior decision in Fumo v. City of Philadelphia, 601 Pa. 322, 972 A.2d 487 (2009). In particular, I disagree with the Majority’s assertion that Fumo represents “the clearest articulation of the distinction between a matter implicating a legislator’s direct and substantial interest in the voting process or power to act and one that does not.” op. at 302, 136 A.3d at 142-43. Fumo has precedential value only in the rare instance in which there has been an alleged executive usurpation of a right or power the General Assembly has, by legislative act, granted solely to itself. Fumo, 972 A.2d at 502. No such unusual circumstance exists in this case.

In my view, the Commonwealth Court’s description in Wilt v. Beal, 26 Pa.Cmwlth. 298, 363 A.2d 876 (1976), of the limits of legislative standing to intervene in response to executive action constitutes the “clearest articulation” of the issue. “[Ljegislators, as legislators, are granted standing to challenge executive actions when specific powers unique to their functions under the Constitution are diminished or interfered with. Once, however, votes which they are entitled to make have been cast and duly counted, their interest as legislators ceases.” Id. at 881. In the present case, the General Assembly passed the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act, 43 P.S. §§ 211.1-211.13, and the Public Employe Relations Act, 43 P.S. §§ 1101.101-1101.2301. At the time of passage, the interests of the members of General Assembly (including those of the proposed intervenors here), as legislators, ceased. For this reason, the Commonwealth Court did not err in denying Appellants’ Application to Intervene.

Justice DOUGHERTY,

concurring.

I join the Majority Opinion in full, writing separately in supplementation out of respect for the Senate Majority Caucus, and to address additional points on the prudential doctrine of standing to sue.

I candidly acknowledge the underlying political pressures attending this matter. A Democratic Governor takes an action and a finite but important group of Republican legislators, representing the Senate Majority Caucus, currently seeks redress in the courts premised upon status as legislators. Of course, a future challenge could arise where the political affiliations are reversed. Legislative challenges to executive actions obviously exist along a continuum. A bipartisan challenge brought by the General Assembly as a whole premised upon a claim of an improper inroad into legislative prerogative, for example, presumably would present a stronger case for recognizing legislative standing than a claim forwarded by a single legislator (regardless of party affiliation). This case rests somewhere in between those extremes.

Notably, the parties are in agreement on the governing law—the relevant principles and instructive application are set forth in Fumo v. City of Philadelphia, 601 Pa. 322, 972 A.2d 487, 497-502 (2009)—with disagreement focusing on application of those principles. The Senate Majority Caucus thus does not seek to revisit or adjust our established precedent; the Caucus seeks relief under Fumo. See Brief for Appellants (No. 59 MAP 2015) at 18 (“Here, the Majority Caucus has standing for the exact same reasons and the exact same rationale present in Fumo”). The Majority Opinion persuasively explains why Fumo and related precedent counsel a conclusion the Senate Majority Caucus lacks standing in this instance; in my view, the Majority Opinion strikes a proper balance.

Given the prudential basis for standing doctrine, see, e.g., Fumo, 972 A.2d at 496, and being cognizant of the deference due members of a coordinate branch, if there were a developed and persuasive challenge to the existing approach to standing involving legislators, the Court no doubt would be open to its consideration. Indeed, it appears the Court has adopted a practical and flexible approach to the concept of standing generally. See generally Johnson v. American Standard, 607 Pa. 492, 8 A.3d 318, 331-34 (2010). This is so much the case that a Pennsylvania treatise has opined:

In light of the “requirement of standing under Pennsylvania law [being] prudential in nature,” Pennsylvania decisional law is somewhat unclear in distinguishing a plaintiff who has been adversely affected and a plaintiff who is merely asserting interests common to all citizens in procuring obedience to the law. The result is a very flexible, if not amorphous, concept of standing to sue.

G. Ronald Darlington et al., 20 West Pennsylvania Appellate Practice Series, § 501:15, at 803 (2015-16 ed.) (footnotes omitted). The authors illustrate this flexibility by noting various theories employed to recognize standing. Notably, the Fumo decision itself reflects a nuanced approach specific to legislative standing.

Finally, as the Majority Opinion notes, it is significant this intervention dispute does not pose a situation where the lawfulness of the Governor’s Executive Order will proceed unchallenged, and the Senate Majority Caucus was permitted to participate as amicus curiae. See Majority Opinion, at 307, 136 A.3d at 145-46.

Under the circumstances, there is some force to this observation by appellees:

The Senators’ argument is particularly precarious, as there are 253 members of the General Assembly, each with his or her own political agendas and constituencies to protect. In this very case, Executive Order 2015-05 was defended by the Democratic caucuses in an amici curiae brief. That is the proper vehicle to show support for a position, not to become a party.

Brief for Appellees (No. 59 MAP 2015) at 25 (footnote omitted).

Chief Justice SAYLOR,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent, as I would recognize standing on the part of legislative leaders, acting on behalf of the Senate Majority Caucus, to intervene in the present proceedings to challenge Executive Order 2015-05 as ultra vires.

In the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act, the General Assembly granted to certain private-sector employees the right to organize and bargain collectively. See 43 P.S. § 211.5. The Legislature, however, expressly undertook to exclude “any individual employed ... in the domestic service of any person in the home of such person.” Id. § 211.3(d). Moreover, under the Attendant Care Services Act, the care recipient is invested with the “right to make decisions about, direct the provision of and control their attendant care services,” including “hiring, training, managing, paying and firing of an attendant ” 62 P.S. § 3052(3).

Executive Order 2015-05 extends to the Attendant Care Services Act. See 4 Pa.Code § 7a.111 (defining “Home care service programs”). It provides that an “employee organization” shall be elected to be the exclusive “representative” of direct care workers to “meet and confer” with the Department of Human Services regarding wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. 4 Pa.Code § 7a.113(a), (b)(2), (c); id. § 7a.114(b). This process may result in a “memorandum of mutual understanding,” which, “[w]hen appropriate, and with the approval of the Governor, ... will be implemented as the policy of the Department[.]” Id. § 7a.113(d)(1).

From my point of view, the Majority Caucus has advanced a colorable claim that Executive Order 2015-05 does not reflect an implementation of existing law by the executive branch, but rather, evinces an exercise of lawmaking power reserved to the legislative branch. In such a scenario, I do not agree that the concerns of a majority of the membership of one house of the General Assembly can be aptly characterized as “generalized interests in the conduct of government common to the general citizenry.” Majority Opinion, at 307, 136 A.3d at 146.

Rather, I subscribe to a more functional approach to legislative standing which would take into account the aggregation of legislative interest in the matter and the character of the claimed intrusion in terms of its impact on the status quo relative to salient public policy. Cf. Jonathan Remy Nash, A Functional Theory of Congressional Standing, 114 Mich. L.Rev. 339, 375-86 (2015). Along these lines, I am of the view that the Court should be sensitive to the concern being advanced, by a majority of the Senate, that alteration, by the Executive, of entitlements and interests impacts power and position both within the General Assembly and between the legislative and executive branches. Accord id.

For example, but for Executive Order 2015-05, there would be no need for the General Assembly to disapprove a “Direct Care Worker Representative.” In the face of this Executive Order and in the absence of judicial review, however, any faction of the Legislature wishing to negate the order will be required to expend the political capital necessary to effectuate the disapproval. Under a functional approach to legislative standing, and taking into account that review is being sought by a majority caucus, I conclude that sufficient injury has been alleged to confer standing.

While I share the majority’s concern with opening the door to a proliferation of challenges by legislators, I believe that taking into account the scale of the legislative interest, the colorability of the claim, and the presence or absence of political questions offers sufficient prudential limitations. While more specific parameters might be ideal, in my view, standing often devolves to an exercise in discernment. The alternative, in my view, is to deny a majority body of representatives of a coordinate branch of government the opportunity to participate directly in a serious constitutional challenge with a substantial functional impact on the General Assembly’s own constitutionally delegated powers.

      . Act of June 1, 1937, P.L. 1168, No. 294, §§ 211.1-211.12, as amended, 43 P.S. §§ 211.1-211.13.

      . Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, No. 195, §§ 101-2301, as amended, 43 P.S. §§ 1101.101-1101.2301.

      . As explained by Appellants, the Pennsylvania Senate organizes its members according to the two major political parties, Republican and Democratic. The two subordinate organizations which make up the Senate, Majority and Minority, are known as the Senate ''caucuses.” While the Pennsylvania Constitution does not employ the term "caucuses" to describe the organization of the Senate, the Majority Caucus and Minority Caucus are the two constituencies that comprise the Senate. Of course, the party that holds the most seats in the Senate is considered to be the "Majority Caucus.” Appellants’ Brief at 1-2 n. 1; see Precision Marketing Inc. v. Commonwealth, Republican Caucus of the Senate of Pennsylvania, 78 A.3d 667, 672 (Pa.Cmwlth.2013).

      . We have jurisdiction over Appellants' appeal from the Commonwealth’s order pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 313. See In re The Barnes Foundation, 582 Pa. 370, 871 A.2d 792, 794-95 (2005) (holding order denying intervenor status immediately appealable under collateral order doctrine).

      . Additionally, Petitioners Jessica Markham, Victoria Markham, Jesse Charles, Pennsylvania Home Care Association, and United Cerebral Palsy of Pennsylvania have filed a brief "to provide the Court with additional background in light of the importance of the matter,” addressing why, in their view, Executive Order 2015-05 is violative of the Pennsylvania Constitution and in conflict with various statutes. Petitioners’ Brief at 1. Likewise, Petitioners Smith and Lambrecht filed a brief in support of Appellants, offering that Appellants could have been joined as original parties pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2327 or permitted to intervene to preserve the General Assembly’s legislative authority, and, thus, meet the requirements for standing.

      . Intervention in a civil action is governed by Pa.R.C.P. 2327. Specifically, Rule 2327(3) and (4), "Who May Intervene,” provides in relevant part:
      At any lime during the pendency of an action, a person not a party thereto shall be permitted to intervene therein, subject to these rules if ,.. (3) such person could have joined as an original party in the action or could have been joined therein; or (4) the determination of such action may affect any legally enforceable interest of such person whether or not such person may be bound by a judgment in the action.
      Pa.R.C.P. 2327(3), (4).

      . In the federal system, by contrast, standing is both constitutional, implicating Article Ill's case or controversy requirement, and prudential, involving judicial limits on federal jurisdiction. U.S. Const, art. Ill; Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 11-12, 124 S.Ct. 2301, 159 L.Ed.2d 98 (2004).

      . Fumo represents an atypical instance in which this Court acted in contravention of our general proscription against issuing academic or advisory opinions. See, e.g., Philadelphia Entm’t & Dev. Partners, L.P. v. City of Philadelphia, 594 Pa. 468, 937 A.2d 385, 392 (2007). In Fumo, state legislators sought to intervene to vindicate their alleged exclusive power under the 1978 Dam Safely Act, 32 P.S. § 693.1-693.27, to grant a license for the use of submerged lands under the Delaware River to construct a casino. Fumo, 972 A.2d at 496. In a companion case decided almost a year prior to Fumo, however, this Court had already determined that the Dam Safety Act did not grant the General Assembly any such exclusive authority, and that instead, the City of Philadelphia had properly issued a license for the construction of the casino pursuant to legislative authority contained in prior (1907) legislation (53 P.S. § 14199, also known as "Act 321”). HSP Gaming, L.P. v. City of Philadelphia, 598 Pa. 118, 954 A.2d 1156, 1182 (2008). Accordingly, at the time we decided Fumo, this Court had already ruled that the state legislators had no exclusive licensing rights, which were the sole basis for their claimed right to intervene.

      . Like the Majority Opinion, I recognize legislative standing does not involve a distinct or separate analytical approach to standing, albeit the reality is cases considering the standing of legislators in prior disputes obviously offer the most direct guidance.

      . I am in respectful disagreement with Justice Donohue concerning Fumo’s precedential value. See Concurring Opinion at 308 & n. 1, 136 A.3d at 146 & n. 1 (Donohue, J.). The parties do not suggest any limitation on the precedent. Moreover, justiciability questions (including political question limitations, standing, ripeness, and mootness) are threshold matters generally to be resolved before proceeding to the merits. Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth, 623 Pa. 564, 83 A.3d 901, 916-17 (2013); Council 13, AFSCME, AFL-CIO ex rel. Fillman v. Rendell, 604 Pa. 352, 986 A.2d 63, 74 n. 10 (2009). The Fumo Court’s decision to address standing first—which was explained by the Court, see 972 A.2d at 491 n. 1—appears to have followed this practice. Moreover, there is no indication in Fumo that a question of mootness was raised in light of the decision in HSP Gaming L.P. v. City of Phila., 598 Pa. 118, 954 A.2d 1156 (2008), the Court was not required to raise the concern sua sponte, see Rendell v. Pa. State Ethics Comm’n, 603 Pa. 292, 983 A.2d 708, 718-19 (2009), and there are countervailing reasons that support reaching even moot questions. See id. (discussing considerations). Finally, Fumo was unanimous with respect to the principles governing legislative standing and their proper application. Under the circumstances, the decision remains fully viable precedent.

      . Act of June 1, 1937, P.L. 1168, No. 294, §§ 1-14 (as amended 43 P.S. §§ 211.1-211.13).

      . Act of Dec. 10, 1986, P.L. 1477, No. 150, §§ 1-8 (as amended 62 P.S. §§ 3051-3058).