Council of the Dist. of Columbia v. Dewitt

• Decision Date: 18 March 2016
• Docket Number: Case No. 2014 CA 2371 B
• Parties: COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Plaintiff, and MURIEL E. BOWSER, in her official capacity as Mayor of the District of Columbia, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY S. DEWITT, in his official capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia, Defendant.
• Court: D.C. Superior Court

COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Plaintiff,

and MURIEL E. BOWSER, in her official capacity

as Mayor of the District of Columbia, Intervenor-Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY S. DEWITT, in his official capacity

as Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia, Defendant.

Case No. 2014 CA 2371 B

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION

March 18, 2016

Calendar 12

Judge Brian F. Holeman

OMNIBUS ORDER

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the following: (1) the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed by Plaintiff Council of the District of Columbia on October 9, 2015; (2) the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed by Intervenor-Plaintiff Muriel E. Bowser, in her official capacity as Mayor of the District of Columbia, on October 30, 2015; and (3) the Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed by Defendant Jeffrey S. Dewitt, in his official capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia, on November 20, 2015. The instant Cross-Motion also contains the papers in opposition to the Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings. On December 7, 2015, the Council of the District of Columbia filed the Reply.¹

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Local Budget Autonomy Act of 2012

The instant action asks the Court to determine whether or not the Local Budget Autonomy Act of 2012 (the "Budget Autonomy Act") is valid under the law. (Council's Mem. of P. & A. at 1, 9.) Council Chairperson Phil Mendelson, in his report on behalf of the Committee of the Whole, describes the Budget Autonomy Act as legislation that "would permit the Council to approve the District's annual budget in the same manner as it considers all other legislation: two readings and a 30-day Congressional review." Committee of the Whole Report on Bill 19-993, at 1 (Dec. 4, 2012).

Further, "[t]he District's budget would no longer require adoption of an appropriation act by Congress." Id. (emphasis added). Chairperson Mendelson asserts that "this limited autonomy would mean much more effective control over the District's financial management." Id. at 2. Colloquially, one of the significant effects of enacting the Budget Autonomy Actwould be that the District would "have the right to spend its local tax and fee revenues without seeking an annual appropriation from Congress," thus enabling the District to spend its funds notwithstanding the absence of congressional legislation appropriating funds for the next fiscal year. Council of the Dist. of Columbia v. Gray, 42 F. Supp. 3d 134, 155 (D.D.C. 2014) (Sullivan, J.) (emphasis added), vacated by Council of the Dist. of Columbia v. Bowser, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8881 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (per curiam); see also David M. Herszenhorn, Spending Bill Passes, Averting a Shutdown, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 1, 2015, at A19 (stating that Congress averted a government shutdown "by approving a temporary spending measure to keep federal agencies operating").

The pertinent portions of the Budget Autonomy Act are as follows:

ENACTMENT OF LOCAL BUDGET BY COUNCIL.

Sec. 446. (a) Adoption of Budgets and Supplements - The Council, within 70 calendar days, or as otherwise provided by law, after receipt of the budget proposal from the Mayor, and after public hearing, and by a vote of a majority of the members present and voting, shall by act adopt the annual budget for the District of Columbia government. The federal portion of the annual budget shall be submitted by the Mayor to the President for transmission to Congress. The local portion of the annual budget shall be submitted by the Chairman of the Council to the Speaker of the Houseof Representatives pursuant to the procedure set forth in section 602(c). Any supplements to the annual budget shall also be adopted by act of the Council, after public hearing, by a vote of a majority of the members present and voting.

(b) Transmission to President During Control Years - In the case of a budget for a fiscal year which is a control year, the budget so adopted shall be submitted by the Mayor to the President for transmission by the President to the Congress; except, that the Mayor shall not transmit any such budget, or amendments or supplements to the budget, to the President until the completion of the budget procedures contained in this Act and the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995.

(c) Prohibiting Obligations and Expenditures Not Authorized Under Budget - Except as provided in section 445A(b), section 446B, section 467(d), section 471(c), section 472(d)(2), section 475(e)(2), section 483(d), and subsections (f), (g), (h)(3), and (i)(3) of section 490, no amount may be obligated or expended by any officer or employee of the District of Columbia government unless -- (1) such amount has been approved by an act of the Council (and then only in accordance with such authorization) and such act has been transmitted by the Chairman to the Congress and has completed the review process under section 602(c)(3); or (2) in the case of an amount obligated or expended during a control year, such amount has been approved by an Act of Congress (and then only in accordance with such authorization).

(d) Restrictions on Reprogramming of Amounts - After the adoption of the annual budget for a fiscal year (beginning with the annual budget for fiscal year 1995), no reprogramming of amounts in the budget may occur unless the Mayor submits to the Council a request for such reprogramming and the Council approves the request, but and only if any additional expenditures provided under such request for an activity are offset by reductions in expenditures for another activity.

(e) Definition - In this part, the term control year has the meaning given such term in section 305(4) of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995.

District of Columbia Law 19-321, Title 60 of the District of Columbia Register Section 1724 (Feb. 15, 2013) (hereafter the "Budget Autonomy Act").

The instant action does not present a simple exercise in lawmaking for the Council. The District of Columbia is a unique entity within the United States of America: the District is not recognized as a "state," instead formed as a "municipal corporation" by Congress and, under the Constitution, subject to Congress' authority to "exercise exclusive legislation" over it. U.S. CONST., art. I, ¶ 8, cl. 17; Barnes v. D.C., 91 U.S. 540, 547 (1875). As a result, citizens of the District are denied fundamental rights enjoyed by citizens of any State, such as representation in Congress and a corresponding say in how the United States Government spends tax dollars levied from citizens of the District. See Banner v. United States, 303 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3 (D.D.C.2004) ("The unfairness of the District's situation is obvious and regrettable. Since the establishment of the District, courts have, however, understood that its unique constitutional position results in unfairness. As early as 1805, then Chief Justice Marshall recognized the inequities compelled by the Constitution as he concluded that the Supreme Court could not grant the District the same benefits enjoyed by the states") (citing Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. 445, 453 (1805)).

The inequities of the District's position and lack of statehood have been recognized and reiterated by its citizens, the President of the United States, and the courts since the dawn of this country's inception. See Banner, 303 F. Supp. 2d at 3; see also Tim Craig, Obama to use D.C. "taxation without representation" license plates, THE WASHINGTON POST, Jan. 15, 2013, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/obama-to-use-dc-taxation-without-representation-license-plates/2013/01/15/f91b09ac-5f5b-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html (stating that President Obama announced that all presidential limousines would use license plates issued by the District that contain the slogan "taxation without representation").

The instant action presents "yet another chapter in the District of Columbia's longstanding struggle to achieve self-government." Banner, 303 F. Supp. 2d at 3. The District took a major step forward on the path to self-governance when Congress passed the District of Columbia Self-Government and Government Reorganization Act, commonly known as the Home Rule Act of 1973. Home Rule Act, Pub. L. No. 93-198, 87 Stat. 774 (codified as amended at District of Columbia Code §§ 1-201.01-1207.71 (2006)).

B. The Home Rule Act of 1973 and Enactment of Home Rule

For much of the twentieth century, Congress wielded its authority under the Constitution to "exercise exclusive legislation" over the District and "confined" the District's municipalgovernment to "mere administration." (Council's Mem. of P. & A. at 4 (citing Metro. R.R. v. District of Columbia, 132 U.S. 1, 7 (1889)). As a result, Congress performed all legislative functions for the District. See U.S. CONST., art. I, ¶ 8, cl. 17. Then, in 1973, Congress decided to fundamentally change its management of and relationship with the District by passing the Home Rule Act.

Congress, through the Home Rule Act, relaxed its strict control of the District's affairs and granted much more autonomy to the District's municipal government; "the District resembles a full 'home rule' city with general powers to govern local affairs except for express limitations, in contrast with a [] municipal corporation to which a state has granted only enumerated powers." Convention Ctr. Referendum Comm. v. D.C. Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 441 A.2d 889, 903 (D.C. 1981) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). The lingering question from the Home Rule Act, presented to the courts numerous times since the Act's enactment and as presented in the instant action, is how much power does the District have to govern its own affairs vis-à-vis Congress?²

The Home Rule Act set forth the District of Columbia Charter (the "Charter"), which "establishes the organizational structure of the...