The Vermont Supreme Court Friday dismissed a suit filed by two senators over Gov. Phil Scott’s appointment of Zoie Saunders as interim education secretary, calling the case “moot.”

Last March, Scott tapped Saunders — then a Florida school administrator — to fill the vacancy left by the departure of former Secretary Dan French a year prior. But in a rare rejection, the Vermont Senate voted 19-9 against Saunders’ permanent appointment, with lawmakers raising concerns that she had spent little time in public education.

Immediately after that vote, however, Scott appointed Saunders to serve as interim secretary. That action prompted Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, P/D-Chittenden Central, and the now-retired Sen. Dick McCormack, D-Windsor, to sue the governor and Saunders. 

In the decision penned by Justice William Cohen, the court stated that because Scott reappointed Saunders again in November while the Legislature was out of session, “this latter appointment superseded the earlier appointment and is plainly consistent” with state law. 

The opinion avoids ruling on the senators’ argument that Scott exceeded his authority by picking Saunders again for the interim secretary role immediately after the Senate’s vote against her. Back in September, a lower court judge had dismissed the senators’ suit, prompting their appeal to the state’s highest judicial authority. 

Friday’s ruling likely ends the nearly year-long fight over Saunders’ position as Vermont’s top education official. This legislative session, she has played a key role in developing Scott’s education reform package, the year’s most high-profile legislation. Lawmakers have broadly softened to Saunders, and senators have not clearly signaled an interest in further contesting her appointment. 

In an interview, Vyhovsky said she could “see the technicality” that led to the mootness decision. But she noted the court wrote Scott’s November appointment has been sent to the Senate for the chamber’s “advice and consent.”

“I think the Senate should say no again,” Vyhovsky said.

Scott’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

Chief Justice Paul Reiber, in a concurring opinion, said the court had chosen “restraint.” The principles of “separation of powers” and “checks and balances,” he argued, sometimes require a branch of government not to act.

“Responsible execution of that power means, at times, we have nothing to say,” Reiber wrote. “This restraint derives from the law and, in the present instance, from the judicially imposed limit of mootness, which instructs that we refrain from rendering an opinion where not required.”