The State Supreme Court used a very interesting phrase upon reinstating Colleen Mathis:
The Court concludes that the letter of November 1, 2011, from the Acting Governor to the intervenor Colleen Mathis does not demonstrate “substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office” by the intervenor Mathis,...
Naturally, the media are interpreting this phrase to mean that the Governor overstepped authority because Mathis's actions didn't rise to substantial neglect of duty etc. That may indeed be the proper interpretation.
However, it's an odd way to phrase it isn't it? The Court said that the "letter" didn't demostrate. Why not say that the "Governor" didn't demonstrate?
We don't have a full opinion yet, but it looks to me like the Courts objection might be procedural. The Constitution requires that Brewer give Mathis notice and a chance to respond. It looks like the Court is saying that the letter itself was insufficient. If that's the case then the Governor simply has to fix the notice and allow time for response.
We'll know when we get the full opinion, but media celbration looks a bit premature to me.