Berry v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 08 October 2013
• Docket Number: Nos. 49S00–1201–PL–53,49S00–1202–PL–76.,s. 49S00–1201–PL–53
• Citation: 990 N.E.2d 410
• Parties: Tim BERRY, Auditor of State; M. Caroline Spotts, Principal Clerk of the House of Representatives; and The State of Indiana, Appellants (Defendants), v. William CRAWFORD, et al., Appellees (Plaintiffs). Tim Berry, Auditor of State; Brian C. Bosma, Speaker of the Indiana House of Representatives; M. Caroline Spotts, Principal Clerk of the House of Representatives; and The State of Indiana, Appellants (Defendants), v. William Crawford, et al., Appellees (Plaintiffs).
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

990 N.E.2d 410

Tim BERRY, Auditor of State; M. Caroline Spotts, Principal Clerk of the House of Representatives; and The State of Indiana, Appellants (Defendants),

v.William CRAWFORD, et al., Appellees (Plaintiffs).

Tim Berry, Auditor of State; Brian C. Bosma, Speaker of the Indiana House of Representatives; M. Caroline Spotts, Principal Clerk of the House of Representatives; and The State of Indiana, Appellants (Defendants),

v.William Crawford, et al., Appellees (Plaintiffs).

Nos. 49S00–1201–PL–53, 49S00–1202–PL–76.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 18, 2013.

Rehearing Denied October 8, 2013.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Thomas M. Fisher, Solicitor General, Stephen R. Creason, Chief Counsel, Ashley Tatman Harwel, Heather Hagan McVeigh, Kathy Bradley, Deputy Attorneys General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.

Mark E. GiaQuinta, Holly A. Brady, Lindsey C. Swanson, Andrew L. Teel, Haller & Colvin, P.C., Fort Wayne, IN, George M. Plews, Peter M. Racher, Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

On Transfer Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 56(A)

DICKSON, Chief Justice.

With this case we confront whether the judicial branch may, consistent with the Indiana Constitution, review actions of and intervene in the internal management of the legislative branch, specifically the decision of the House of Representatives to collect fines from House members who left the state to prevent the formation of a quorum. We hold that when, as here, the Indiana Constitution expressly assigns certain functions to the legislative branch without any contrary constitutional qualification or limitation, challenges to the exercise of such legislative powers are nonjusticiable and the doctrine of separation of powers precludes judicial consideration of the claims for relief, and the defendants' request for dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims should have been granted in full.

During the 2011 legislative session, members of the Indiana House of Representatives Democratic Caucus left the House Chambers and the state to prevent the formation of a quorum in order to block a vote on impending legislation. Members of the House Republican Caucus imposed, by motion, fines on the absent legislators. The Speaker of the House, Brian Bosma, then directed the Principal Clerk, M. Caroline Spotts, to submit payroll grids to the Auditor of State, Tim Berry, withholding the fines from legislative pay. The plaintiffs, affected members of the House Democratic Caucus, brought suit in Marion Superior Court seeking to recover the withheld pay and enjoin future action to recover the fines.

On December 6, 2011, the trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in part, finding that the determination of the fine was within the House's “exclusive constitutional authority” and thus outside the court's jurisdiction, but denied it in part, finding that review of the collection of fines was within the court's jurisdiction. The trial court then certified its order for interlocutory appeal and stayed the case pending that appeal (“ Berry I ”).

During the 2012 legislative session, members of the House Democratic Caucus again absented themselves from the House Chambers in order to block a vote on impending legislation. House Republicans again passed motions to compel and fine the absent members. The trial court then lifted its stay to allow amendment of the plaintiffs' complaint to add additional House Democrats as plaintiffs. On January 27, 2012, the trial court held a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.

On February 6, 2012, the trial court consolidated the trial on the merits with the previous hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction and entered final judgment for the plaintiffs (“ Berry II ”). The court ordered return of the withheld amounts and issued a permanent injunction preventing future withholding, finding that the seizure of the members' pay in satisfaction of the legislative fines violated the Indiana Wage Payment Statutes. The defendants appeal both the December 6, 2011, denial of the defendants' motion to dismiss, Berry I, and the February 6, 2012, final judgment, Berry II, which have been consolidated by this Court into one appeal.¹

In granting the defendants' motion to dismiss in part, the trial court found that it could not “interfere with the House's ‘exclusive constitutional authority’ to compel attendance or determine a fine, even if it violates [statutory law] when doing so.” Appellants' App'x at 7. We agree. For courts to get involved in such a legislative function would amount to the type of “constitutionally impermissible judicial interference with the internal operations of the legislative branch” which we have rejected in the past. State ex rel. Masariu v. Marion Superior Ct. No. 1, 621 N.E.2d 1097, 1098 (Ind.1993). Yet, in denying the motion with regard to review of the collection of the legislative fines, the trial court found that “the House's ‘exclusive constitutional authority’ to compel attendance does not preclude Indiana courts from otherwise interpreting and enforcing applicable Indiana statutes—which is the courts' ‘exclusive constitutional authority.’ ” Appellants' App'x at 8. Thus, the trial court concluded, it was not precluded from deciding plaintiffs' Indiana wage claims and Indiana constitutional claims relating to the collection of the fines. This is incorrect.

The standard of review for a trial court's grant or denial of a 12(B)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is “a function of what occurred in the trial court.” GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397, 401 (Ind.2001). Where the facts before the trial court are not in dispute, the question of subject matter jurisdiction is one of law and we review the trial court's ruling de novo. Id. Likewise, when reviewing a final judgment, we review all conclusions of law de novo. Ind. Dep't of Ins. v. Everhart, 960 N.E.2d 129, 133 (Ind.2012). Therefore, because the facts here are not in dispute, we review the trial court's judgment de novo.

The defendants assert that “[t]he Indiana Constitution commits legislative discipline exclusively to the respective houses of the General Assembly, and discipline of members is not subject to judicial review.” Appellants' Br. at 15–16. In support, the defendants cite various provisions of Article 4 of the Indiana Constitution, which delineate the powers of the legislative department. Article 4, Section 10, states, in relevant part, “Each House, when assembled, shall choose its own officers...; judge the elections, qualifications, and returns of its own members; determine its rules of proceeding, and sit upon its own adjournment.” Ind. Const. art. 4, § 10. The defendants also rely on Article 4, Section 11,

Two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may meet, adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members. A quorum being in attendance, if either House fail to effect an organization within the first five days thereafter, the members of the House so failing, shall be entitled to no compensation, from the end of the said five days until an organization shall have been effected.Id.art. 4, § 11 (emphasis added). Finally, the defendants cite Article 4, Section 14, relating to discipline of members: “Either House may punish its members for disorderly behavior, and may, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member; but not a second time for the same cause.” Id.art. 4, § 14 (emphasis added). Therefore, the defendants argue, the trial court, in reviewing the plaintiffs' claims and entering final judgment for the plaintiffs, acted in violation of the principles of separation of powers decreed by the Indiana Constitution.

The separation of powers doctrine is embodied in Article 3, Section 1, of the Indiana Constitution, which states,

The powers of the Government are divided into three separate departments; the Legislative, the Executive including the Administrative, and the Judicial: and no person, charged with official duties under one of these departments, shall exercise any of the functions of another, except as in this Constitution expressly provided.

Id.art. 3, § 1. The separation of powers doctrine prevents the courts from reviewing political, social, and economic actions within the exclusive province of coordinate branches of government. Peavler v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Monroe Cnty., 528 N.E.2d 40, 44 (Ind.1988). The purpose of this doctrine is “to rid each separate department of government from any influence or control by the other department.” A.B. v. State, 949 N.E.2d 1204, 1212 (Ind.2011) (citing State ex rel. Black v. Burch, 226 Ind. 445, 463, 80 N.E.2d 294, 302 (1948)), reh'g denied. As such,

Courts should be very careful not to invade the authority of the legislature. Nor should anxiety to maintain the constitution, laudable as that must ever be esteemed, lessen their caution in that particular; for if they overstep the authority which belongs to them, and assume that which pertains to the legislature, they violate the very constitution which they thereby seek to preserve and maintain.

State ex rel. Bd. of Comm'rs of Benton Cnty. v. Boice, 140 Ind. 506, 514, 40 N.E. 113, 113 (1895) (quoting Evans v. Browne, 30 Ind. 514, 523 (1869)).

While the Constitution of the United States implicitly mandates the separation of powers at the federal level, see Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 124, 96 S.Ct. 612, 684–85, 46 L.Ed.2d 659, 747–48 (1976), the constitutions of Indiana and many other states clearly and explicitly command that each branch of state government respect the constitutional boundaries of the coordinate branches. See, e.g.,Ala. Const. art. III, § 43; Ga. Const. art. I, § 2, ¶ III; Iowa Const. art. III, § 1; Ky. Const. § 27; Mass. Const. pt. 1, art. XXX; Mont. Const. art. III, § 1; Nev. Const. art. III, § 1; N.H. Const. pt. 1, art. 37; N.C. Const....