Common Cause of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania

Citation558 F.3d 249
Decision Date26 February 2009
Docket NumberNo. 06-3391.,06-3391.
PartiesCOMMON CAUSE OF PENNSYLVANIA; The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania; Representative Gregory Vitali; Tim Potts; Carl H. Silverman; William R. Koch; H. William McIntyre, Appellants v. Commonwealth of PENNSYLVANIA; Edward G. Rendell, Governor; Robert P. Casey III; David G. Argall; David J. Brightbill; H. William DeWeese; Robert C. Jubelirer; Robert J. Mellow; John M. Perzel; Samuel H. Smith; Michael Veon; Ralph J. Cappy.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Eric B. Schnurer, Esq. (Argued), West Chester, PA, and Paul A. Rossi, Esq., Mountville, PA, for Appellants.

Mark A. Aronchick, Esq., Wendy Beetlestone, Esq., Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee Edward G. Rendell.

C. Clark Hodgson, Jr., Esq., Jonathon F. Bloom, Esq., Thomas W. Dymek, Esq., Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellees David G. Argall, H. William DeWeese, John M. Perzel, Samuel H. Smith, and Michael R. Veon.

John P. Krill, Jr., Esq. (Argued), Linda J. Shorey, Esq., Amy L. Groff, Esq., Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, Harrisburg, PA, for Appellees David Brightbill and Robert C. Jubelirer.

James F. Tierney IV, Esq., Patrick Heffron, Esq., Eugene F. Hickey II, Esq., Cipriani & Werner, Scranton, PA, for Appellee Robert J. Mellow.

Arlin M. Adams, Esq. (Argued), Paul H. Titus, Esq., Bruce P. Merenstein, Esq., Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, PA, and Howard M. Holmes, Chief Legal Counsel, Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee Ralph J. Cappy.

Before: FLAUM, EBEL and LEVAL, Circuit Judges.*

OPINION OF THE COURT

EBEL, Circuit Judge.

This appeal stems from litigation challenging a short-lived Pennsylvania statute ("Act 44") that increased salaries for state legislators, executive officials and state judges. Plaintiffs are Pennsylvania citizens, a state representative and two organizations—Common Cause and the League of Women Voters. They sued the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, its governor and treasurer, the General Assembly's leadership, and the Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in their individual and official capacities. Plaintiffs allege that, for the past ten years, members of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have traded judicial decisions favorable to the Pennsylvania General Assembly in return for the legislature's funding the state judiciary. According to Plaintiffs, this arrangement culminated in the General Assembly's enactment of Act 44 in a sleight-of-hand manner during the dead of night. In this litigation, Plaintiffs primarily challenge the manner in which Act 44 was enacted, seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief. Because Plaintiffs allege only general grievances shared by all citizens of Pennsylvania, however, we conclude that they lack standing to pursue the claims they assert. Therefore, having jurisdiction to consider this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court to dismiss Plaintiffs' action in its entirety.

I. BACKGROUND

Because the district court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6), see Common Cause of Pa. v. Pennsylvania, 447 F.Supp.2d 415, 419 n. 1, 422 (M.D.Pa.2006), we must accept as true all well-pled allegations and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, see Lewis v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 542 F.3d 403, 405 (3d Cir.2008) (Rule 12(b)(6)); Taliaferro v. Darby Twp. Zoning Bd., 458 F.3d 181, 188 (3d Cir. 2006) (Rule 12(b)(1) and (6)).

A. Factual allegations

In their second amended complaint, Plaintiffs alleged the following:

1. Events leading up to the General Assembly's enactment of Act 44

The Pennsylvania Constitution provides that

[t]he judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a unified judicial system consisting of the Supreme Court, the Superior Court, the Commonwealth Court, courts of common pleas, community courts, municipal and traffic courts in the City of Philadelphia, such other courts as may be provided by law and justices of the peace. All courts and justices of the peace and their jurisdiction shall be in this unified judicial system.

Pa. Const., art. V, § 1. Based upon this constitutional provision, Allegheny County, in 1985, sued the Commonwealth, arguing that, contrary to the relevant Pennsylvania statutes enacted by the General Assembly, the Pennsylvania Constitution required the Commonwealth, rather than the County, to fund the County's Court of Common Pleas. See County of Allegheny v. Commonwealth, 517 Pa. 65, 534 A.2d 760, 761, 763 (1987). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed, holding "that the statutory scheme for county funding of the judicial system is in conflict with the intent clearly expressed in the constitution that the judicial system be unified." Id. at 765. Nevertheless, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court provided that,

because this order entails that present statutory funding for the judicial system is now void as offending the constitutional mandate for a unified system, we stay our judgment to afford the General Assembly an opportunity to enact appropriate funding legislation consistent with this holding. Until this is done, the prior system of county funding shall remain in place.

Id. (footnotes omitted).

Notwithstanding this mandate from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, however, the General Assembly declined to act to fund the courts. See Pa. State Ass'n of County Comm'rs v. Commonwealth, 545 Pa. 324, 681 A.2d 699, 700-01 (1996). After nine years of inaction, the Pennsylvania Association of County Commissioners sought mandamus relief from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, asking the Court to direct the General Assembly to fund the state's unified court system. See id. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus: "Pursuant to this writ, jurisdiction is retained and by further order a master will be appointed to recommend to this court a schema which will form the basis for the specific implementation to be ordered." Id. at 703.

At about this same time, the General Assembly, contrary to the Pennsylvania Constitution, was generally enacting legislation "in ways that precluded involvement in the legislative process by both the public and the vast majority of legislators." App. at 43. Common Cause, as well as other parties, sued Pennsylvania in state court, challenging the validity of these various legislative enactments.

In 1998 and 1999, the General Assembly negotiated with the Pennsylvania courts over the Commonwealth's funding the court system. Those negotiations resulted in the General Assembly enacting legislation to fund the Commonwealth's unified judicial system in return for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's judicial decisions upholding the legislation being challenged in state court.

2. Enactment of Act 44

In 2005, the Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, "in secret," negotiated with state legislators for the enactment of a bill increasing the salaries of the Commonwealth's judges and justices. Eventually, this pay hike was included in legislation that also increased the salaries for legislators and high-level executive branch employees.

House Bill 1521, the bill that would become Act 44, was initially "a 24-line bill" entitled "Relating to Compensation for Executive Branch Officials," which prohibited "any member of the executive branch or any board from receiving compensation greater than that paid to the Governor." App. at 49. The House passed House Bill 1521. The Senate then amended House Bill 1521, changing it "into a 27-line bill restricting its application to officials elected or appointed to an executive branch position after November 1, 2006." Id. at 50. The Senate passed the bill as amended. The House, however, rejected the revised bill and so House Bill 1521 was referred to a conference committee consisting of three House and three Senate members. The members of this conference committee, named as defendants in this litigation, included most of the General Assembly's leadership.

"At approximately 2:00 a.m. on July 7, 2005," the conference committee amended House Bill 1521, changing it from a twenty-seven-line bill about compensation for executive officials into "a 22 page bill, providing for massive increases of up to 54% in the salary of every justice and judge of the Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System, every member of the General Assembly, and senior members of the executive branch including the Governor and members of his Cabinet." Id. at 51. The revised bill also mandated "that provisions of the Act are nonseverable and if any provision of the Act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remaining provisions or applications of the Act are void." Id. at 65. According to Plaintiffs, by including this non-severability provision, "the Commonwealth government intentionally created a financial conflict for state court judges to ensure they would not deviate from the negotiated goal of upholding salary increases for all three branches of state government." Id. at 66.

This revised bill was presented to the Senate and House within "minutes" after being reported out of the conference committee "under a rule prohibiting any amendment." Id. at 52. Both chambers passed the bill. "A few hours later, the Governor signed" the bill "into law," and it immediately took effect.1 Id. at 53, 66, 317.

3. Reaction to Act 44

"There was a negative public response to [Act 44], focusing particularly upon its timing and method of passage...." Stilp, 905 A.2d at 925. Several state-court actions challenged Act 44's validity. See id. at 926-28. Four months after its enactment, the General Assembly, on November 16, 2005, repealed Act 44 "in its entirety" and reinstated the previous pay scheme ("Act 72").2 App. at 53; see Stilp, 905 A.2d at 924-25 & 924 n. 3.

B. Procedural posture of this litigation

Plaintiffs initiated...

To continue reading

Request your trial
280 cases
  • Democracy Rising Pa v. Celluci
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • March 20, 2009
    ....... United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania. . March 20, 2009. . Page 781 . COPYRIGHT MATERIAL ... ¶ 5.) If the Board determines that there is probable cause to pursue formal disciplinary action against a judge, it ... attack "contests the sufficiency of the pleadings." Common Cause of Pa. v. Pennsylvania, 558 F.3d 249, 256-58 (3d ......
  • Edmonson v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • April 1, 2011
    ......10–4919. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. April 1, 2011. .         [777 F.Supp.2d 873] ... Common Cause of Pa. v. Pennsylvania, 558 F.3d 249, 253 (3d ......
  • Sheils v. Bucks Cnty. Domestic Relations Section
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • January 31, 2013
    ......11–3315. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. Jan. 31, 2013. .         [921 F.Supp.2d 399] ... been, and continue, in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas and its Domestic Relations Section (“DRS”). ...§ 303.101 gives rise to a cause of action. Count XI is a demand for accounting. 10 ......
  • Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc., Civ. No. 12-3825 (NLH/JS)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • March 28, 2013
    ......§ 25:2-25(a)&(b); (5) common law conversion; (6) common law unjust enrichment; (7) ... deepening insolvency as theory of injury under Pennsylvania law); In re Norvergence, Inc. , 405 B.R. 709, 750 (Bankr. ..., & alterations of text omitted); see also Common Cause v. Pennsylvania , 558 F.3d 249, 258 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT