Ex parte James
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Citation | 836 So.2d 813 |
Parties | Ex parte Governor Fob JAMES et al. (In re Alabama Coalition for Equity, Inc., an Alabama nonprofit corporation, et al. v. Fob James, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Alabama and as a president of the State Board of Education, et al.) Ex parte Governor Fob James et al. (In re Mary Harper, suing as next friend of Deion Harper; and Kerry Phillips, a minor, et al. v. Fob James, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Alabama and as president of the State Board of Education, et al.) Fob James, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Alabama and as president of the State Board of Education, et al. v. Alabama Coalition for Equity, Inc., et al. Fob James, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Alabama and as president of the State Board of Education, et al. v. Mary Harper et al. Joyce Pinto et al. v. Alabama Coalition for Equity et al. Joyce Pinto et al. v. Alabama Coalition for Equity et al. |
Decision Date | 31 May 2002 |
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Margaret L. Fleming and Scott L. Rouse, asst. attys. gen.; Michael R. White, Alabama Department of Education; and Edward A. Hosp, governor's legal advisor, for the State defendants.
Samuel Adams, Montgomery; and Kendrick E. Webb and Bart Harmon of Webb & Eley, P.C., Montgomery, for the Pinto parties.
Roger L. Bates, I. Ripon Britton, Jr., and E. Shane Black of Hand Arendall, L.L.C., Birmingham, for Alabama Coalition for Equity, Inc.
Robert D. Segall of Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, P.A., Montgomery; Mark Sabel of Sabel & Sabel, Montgomery; and Martha Morgan, Tuscaloosa, for Mary Harper, suing as next friend of Deion Harper, and Kerry Phillips.
Paul J. Dezenberg, Tuscaloosa, for Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program.
Richard P. Rouco of Whatley Drake, L.L.C., Birmingham, for amici curiae Child Advocacy Organizations, Civil Rights Organizations, Professional Education Associations, and University Professors throughout the State, in support of the Alabama Coalition for Equity.
William F. Gardner of Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O'Neal, Birmingham, for amici curiae Jacksonville State University, University of Montevallo, University of North Alabama, University of South Alabama, Troy State University System, and University of West Alabama.
Henry E. Simpson and David W. Spurlock of Lange, Simpson, Robinson & Somerville, L.L.P., Birmingham; and C. Glenn Powell and Hattie E. Kaufman, Office of General Counsel, The University of Alabama System, for amicus curiae Board of Trustees of The University of Alabama.
Lee F. Armstrong, Office of General Counsel, Auburn University; and James E. Williams of Melton, Espy, Williams & Hayes, for amicus curiae Auburn University.
Roderic G. Steakley and William R. Lunsford of Sirote & Permutt, Huntsville, for amicus curiae Alabama A&M University.
This Court "shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them; to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men." Ala. Const. 1901, § 43 (emphasis added). In Alabama, separation of powers is not merely an implicit "doctrine" but rather an express command; a command stated with a forcefulness rivaled by few, if any, similar provisions in constitutions of other sovereigns. Amendment 582 to the Alabama Constitution of 1901 reflects this State's adherence to this command by effectively nullifying any "order of a state court, which requires disbursement of state funds, ... until the order has been approved by a simple majority of both houses of the Legislature." Compelled by the weight of this command and a concern for judicial restraint, we hold (1) that this Court's review of the merits of the still pending cases commonly and collectively known in this State, and hereinafter referred to, as the "Equity Funding Case,"1 has reached its end, and (2) that, because the duty to fund Alabama's public schools is a duty that—for over 125 years2—the people of this State have rested squarely upon the shoulders of the Legislature, it is the Legislature, not the courts, from which any further redress should be sought. Accordingly, we hold that the Equity Funding Case is due to be dismissed.
Concerns regarding judicial restraint and the separation of powers have constituted a repeated refrain in this litigation. See James v. Alabama Coalition for Equity, Inc., 713 So.2d 937, 943 (Ala.1997) ( ); Id. at 953 ( ); Ex parte James, 713 So.2d 869, 878 (Ala.1997) ( ); Id. at 891-94 ( ); Pinto v. Alabama Coalition for Equity, 662 So.2d 894, 900 (Ala.1995) ( ); Id. at 901 ( ); Id. at 903 ( ); Opinion of the Justices No. 338, 624 So.2d 107, 110 (Ala.1993) ( ).
As the various opinions attached to this and other decisions of this Court stemming from the Equity Funding Case demonstrate, members of this Court have expressed serious concerns regarding the underlying foundations of this case and the trial court's actions and legal conclusions leading up to and included in its March 31, 1993, "Liability Order." See, e.g., Ex parte James, 713 So.2d at 895-923 ( ); Pinto, 662 So.2d at 901-10 ( ). However, the Liability Order having been purportedly made "final" by the trial court pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., and never appealed, this Court has, rightly or wrongly, so far refused to review the merits of the Liability Order.
Given our ultimate holding in this opinion, we deem it judicially imprudent now—after issuing four decisions in this case over the past nine years—to test the bounds of judicial restraint in such a manner. Our present concerns parallel the rationale that undergirds the principle of stare decisis:
Bibb v. Bibb, 79 Ala. 437, 443-44 (1885). However, our restraint should not be seen as establishing some new formula for determining when this Court will decline to rule on an issue or to exercise its inherent appellate and supervisory powers; the undisputedly sui generis nature of this case precludes such an interpretation. See Ex parte James, 713 So.2d at 876 ( ).
Like the issues surrounding the Liability Order, the issue of the proper remedy in this case raises concerns for judicial restraint, albeit of a different type. With regard to the remedy, our concern is not that this Court should refrain from potentially harming the public's confidence in the "reasonable certainty, stability, and consistency" of decisions of the judicial branch, but rather that the pronouncement of a specific remedy "from the bench" would necessarily represent an exercise of the power of that branch of government charged by the people of the State of Alabama with the sole duty to administer state funds to public schools: the Alabama Legislature. As Justice Houston noted in Ex parte James:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Town of Gurley v. M&N Materials, Inc.
...Constitution.’ McGee v. Borom, 341 So.2d 141, 143 (Ala.1976).”954 So.2d at 1099 (Parker, J., dissenting). Further, in Ex parte James, 836 So.2d 813, 834–35 (Ala.2002), this Court set forth the following caution concerning its duty to interpret the Constitution: “And like the United States S......
-
Cent. Ala. Fair Hous. Ctr. v. Magee
...component to a child's welfare, see Opinion of the Justices, 624 So.2d 107, 158 (Ala.1993), abrogated on other grounds by Ex Parte James, 836 So.2d 813 (Ala.2002), and treats characteristics of a child's parents that detract from education (like poverty or an unsafe environment) as obstacle......
-
Worthington Fed. Bank v. Everest Nat'l Ins. Co.
...on what courts do not say, logically speaking, are generally unreliable and should not be favored by the judiciary." Ex parte James, 836 So.2d 813, 818 (Ala.2002). Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that, under the reasoning of Blackburn, Everest is not entitled to summary judgment......
-
Gary B. v. Whitmer
...of education" to find workable standards. City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun , 662 A.2d 40, 59 (R.I. 1995) ; cf. Ex Parte James , 836 So. 2d 813, 819 (Ala. 2002) (per curiam). This practical concern has far greater force as applied to the national due-process right that the plaintiffs ask us to m......
-
Statutory Class Actions: Developments And Strategies
...Yu v. Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp., 732 N.E.2d 1173 (Ill. Ct. App. 2000) (same, with respect to unmanifested software defect); Ex parte James, 836 So. 2d 813, 872-73 (Ala. 2002) (dismissing putative class action in part for lack of named plaintiffs' standing: "the plaintiffs did not allege in the......
-
HOW DO JUDGES DECIDE SCHOOL FINANCE CASES?
...Trial Court AK 2007 2007 WL 8310251 Trial court AL 1993 1993 WL 204083 Trial Court AL 1997 713 So.2d 869 Court of last resort AL 2002 836 So.2d 813 Court of last resort AL 1997 713 So.2d 937 Court of last resort AL 1993 624 So.2d 107 Court of last resort AR 2011 2011 WL 9683713 Trial court ......
-
The Courts’ Consensus: Money Does Matter for Educational Opportunity
...v. Driscoll, 2004 WL 877984 (Mass. Super, 2004); rev’d.Hancock v. Commissioner of Education, 822 N.E.2d 1134 (Mass. 2005).Ex Parte James, 836 So.2d 813 (Ala. 2002).Levittown v. Nyquist, 439 N.E.2d 359 (N.Y. 1982).Lobato v. State of Colorado, 304 P.3d 1132 (Colo. 2013).Lujan v. Colorado Stat......