Purcellville Vice Mayor Carl “Ben” Nett returns to Loudoun County Circuit Court on Thursday afternoon for an expedited hearing that could determine whether he remains in office, whether a state law targeting Purcellville survives constitutional scrutiny, and whether he recovers attorneys’ fees from his recent recall trial.
Judge Designate Randy I. Bellows will take the bench at 2 p.m. on three matters arising from Senate Bill 648, the law that mandates suspension of any indicted officer in a Planning District 8 town with a 2020 census population between 8,000 and 10,000. Both parties agree Purcellville is the only town in Virginia that meets those criteria.
THE SUSPENSION MOTION
The Commonwealth filed an emergency motion to suspend Nett from office pending resolution of felony charges set for trial in October and December. The motion relies on Senate Bill 648, which Gov. Abigail Spanberger amended before signing to add emergency effective date. That amendment caused the law to take effect immediately upon passage on April 22, 2026, rather than on the standard July 1 effective date for ordinary legislation.
Stafford County Commonwealth’s Attorney Eric L. Olsen, serving as special prosecutor, argues the law requires immediate suspension and that the court may appoint a suitable person to act in Nett’s place.
The motion was originally heard May 7, when Bellows set the expedited briefing schedule and continued Nett on bond. If Bellows grants the motion Thursday, Nett would be removed from his vice mayor duties pending the outcome of the criminal cases.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE
In a 15-page memorandum filed May 14, Nett’s counsel Ryan Campbell of King, Campbell, Poretz & Mitchell argues Senate Bill 648 was never properly enacted and that Virginia Code 15.2-1535.1 is not the law.
Campbell’s central argument focuses on the same emergency enactment language the Governor added on April 13. Under Article IV, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, emergency legislation requires a four-fifths vote in both houses. The legislation was passed with a simple majority vote.
“The Governor cannot supply an emergency clause through the amendment process if doing so would allow the four-fifths requirement to be circumvented,” Campbell wrote. “The constitutional requirement does not disappear because the provision originates with the Governor rather than the Legislature.”
Campbell also raises a Single Subject Rule challenge under Article IV, Section 12, arguing the bill’s title references members of governing bodies but the legislation also imposes a debt and infrastructure study, a remedial plan, council agenda requirements, and a town manager residency requirement. “One addresses statewide ethics regulation, and the other targets a designated municipality during an alleged local governmental scandal,” Campbell wrote.
In a footnote, Campbell notes the Governor’s recommendation also struck language that would have held the suspended officer’s compensation in escrow and returned it if the criminal proceedings resulted in the officer’s favor. Campbell argues this change “gutted” the Commonwealth’s earlier argument that the law was not a Bill of Attainder. A Bill of Attainder is an act that declares an individual guilty of a crime and imposes punishment without a trial.
THE COMMONWEALTH’S RESPONSE
Olsen filed an eight-page response on May 18 arguing Article IV, Section 13 does not apply because the emergency language was not in the bill originally presented to the Governor. He contends Article V, Section 6(iii) controls: when both houses agree to the Governor’s entire recommendation by simple majority, the amended bill becomes law. In Virginia, emergency legislation refers to a bill that is passed with a four-fifths majority vote and defines the emergency within the text of the legislation.
Olsen leans on the presumption of constitutionality, citing Virginia Supreme Court precedent that “every reasonable doubt regarding the constitutionality of a legislative enactment must be resolved in favor of its validity.”
THE ATTORNEYS’ FEES MOTION
Under a separate scheduling order (CL25-2775), Bellows will also rule Thursday on whether Nett can recover additional money from the Town for legal expenses incurred during his recall trial.
According to filings from Parrish Snead Franklin Simpson PLC, counsel spent more than 440 hours on the recall matter, with the week before trial and trial days alone requiring over 175 hours. The firm charged $280 per hour under a negotiated agreement with the Virginia Risk Sharing Association, which insures the Town and provided limited coverage. That rate is a significant discount from attorney Jennifer McGovern’s regular $425 hourly rate, according to the filing.
The Commonwealth had projected a three-day trial, but proceedings ran six days, with more than $5,000 spent on a court reporter. The filing states the time and expenses were reasonable given the complexity of the case and factors outside Nett’s control.
BACKGROUND
The hearing is the latest chapter in a legal saga that began with an April 2025 recall petition filed by a group of residents identifying themselves as the Qualified Voters of Purcellville. Similar petitions were filed against Mayor Christopher Bertaut and councilmembers Carol Luke and Susan Khalil but have not moved forward.
Nett’s recall trial began April 20 and ran six days. On April 27, after roughly 10 hours of deliberations, a seven-member jury found Nett violated town policy and the Conflict of Interest Act but determined those findings did not justify removal from office. It was the first jury trial in decades on a petition to remove a sitting elected official in Virginia. Days before the verdict, Gov. Spanberger signed Senate Bill 648 into law with her emergency amendment attached. Olsen filed the emergency suspension motion the same day the jury declined to recall Nett.
Nett faces separate criminal charges including bid-rigging, conspiracy, commercial fraud, and misuse of a law-enforcement database, with trials scheduled for October and December. Purcellville Town Manager Kwasi Fraser faces related bid-rigging and commercial fraud charges.
Thursday’s hearing is scheduled for 30 minutes.
