POLICYMAKERS can disagree in good faith over the merits of policy “without resorting to unfounded assertions of unlawfulness,” Gov. Arnold I. Palacios’ legal counsel said in response to the Senate’s rejection of Executive Order 2025-2.
Issued on May 30, 2025, the EO proposes abolishing the Commonwealth Casino Commission and transferring its duties and regulatory authority over the now-defunct casino industry to the Commonwealth Lottery Commission.
The Legislature has 60 days to either disapprove or modify the executive order.
On July 14, 2025, the Senate voted 6-2 to adopt the Senate Gaming Committee’s recommendation to reject the governor’s EO.
The House Committee on Gaming convened Thursday to discuss the matter. Instead of acting on the Senate’s communication, the House committee scheduled a joint meeting with the Judiciary and Governmental Operations Committee to hear directly from CCC members.
Before the meeting, the House committee gave the governor’s legal counsel, Brendan Layde, an opportunity to respond to Senate Legal Counsel Antonette Villagomez’s characterization of the EO.
Layde said he was not allowed to speak on the record during the Senate Gaming Committee hearing and was instead told the governor’s office could submit a written response.
During the public comment period, Layde read his written rebuttal, rejecting the Senate’s claim that the EO was unlawful.
He cited Article III, Section 15 of the NMI Constitution, which grants the governor the authority to reorganize executive branch offices. According to Layde, the plain text of that section clearly empowers the governor to alter statutory enactments regarding the allocation of duties within the executive branch.
“This does not infringe on the legislative power,” Layde said, “because the Legislature has the authority to modify or disapprove such executive orders — an authority that is also clearly outlined in the Constitution.”
Layde said EO 2025-2 simply transfers functions from one legislatively created entity — the CCC — to another — the CLC.
He also referenced the federal court’s appellate division decision in Mafnas v. Camacho, where an EO transferring the Personnel Office to the Office of Personnel Management was upheld. That executive order had changed existing law, Layde said, yet became effective after 60 days because the Legislature did not act.
Layde said the appellate division, in Mafnas v. Camacho, relied on the constitutional analysis accompanying Article III, Section 15, which explicitly allows the governor to initiate administrative reorganization through executive orders, subject to legislative review.
Quoting from the Mafnas ruling that read, “The governor may take the initiative in administrative reorganization. If any changes in the law are required, this section authorizes the governor to effect such changes by executive orders and submit [them] to each house of the legislature,” Layde added, “this ruling is dispositive of the constitutionality of EO 2025-2.”
He then addressed the Senate legal counsel’s reference to the Torres v. CUC case, where the NMI Supreme Court ruled against a series of executive orders that created an entirely new office — the CEO of the Commonwealth Utilities Corporation — without legislative authority.
Layde argued that unlike Torres, which involved the creation of a new position, EO 2025-2 — like Mafnas — simply reallocates existing functions. “The Torres decision reaffirmed Mafnas, distinguishing it because Governor Fitial had created a new office ‘out of whole cloth,’” Layde said.
“In contrast, Governor Palacios’ EO merely transfers duties from CCC to CLC,” he said.
Layde added that EO 2025-2 does not alter or repeal any statute regarding the appointment of CCC commissioners. It terminates their terms only because their duties are transferred, not because of misconduct. Nor does the EO alter provisions regarding the executive director for casino regulation. “It merely reallocates oversight responsibilities from CCC to CLC,” he said.
Regarding the removal of commission members, Layde acknowledged Article III, Section 21, which lists specific grounds for removing commissioners: gross neglect, breach of fiduciary duty, felony conviction, or mental or physical incapacity. However, he argued that EO 2025-2 does not violate these protections.
“The order does not claim the commissioners are guilty of neglect or breach,” Layde said. “Rather, because CCC is divested of all statutory responsibilities, the commissioners no longer owe duties within the meaning of Section 21, and their terms are therefore terminated for cause.”
Possible legal challenge
Layde also disagreed with the Senate counsel’s assertion that the EO would be void without legislative action.
He said the courts would likely uphold EO 2025-2 if the Legislature fails to act within 60 days — just as they did in Mafnas v. Camacho.
“If the Legislature assumes the EO will not take effect without their action, they are inviting litigation,” Layde added.
He said the Legislature retains the power to disapprove or modify the EO within the 60-day constitutional window. “This check-and-balance preserves the Legislature’s core lawmaking authority,” Layde said, “exactly as envisioned by the framers of the NMI Constitution.”
