Legislature of the Virgin Islands v. Dejongh

• Decision Date: 07 August 2009
• Docket Number: D.C. Civ.App. No. 2007–25.
• Citation: 52 V.I. 650
• Parties: LEGISLATURE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, Appellant, v. John P. DeJONGH, Governor of the Virgin Islands, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands

52 V.I. 650

LEGISLATURE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, Appellant,

v.John P. DeJONGH,¹ Governor of the Virgin Islands, Appellee.

D.C. Civ.App. No. 2007–25.

District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John, Appellate Division.

Filed: Aug. 7, 2009.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Douglas A. Brady, Esq. St. Croix, U.S.V.I., for Appellant.

Vincent F. Frazer, Esq. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., for Appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM,

The Legislature of the Virgin Islands, (the “Legislature”) appeals from a January 19, 2007, judgment of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John (the “Superior Court”) granting summary judgment in favor of Charles W. Turnbull, former Governor of the Virgin Islands (the “Governor,” or “Governor Turnbull”) on his complaint against the Legislature. For the reasons given below, we will reverse the January 19, 2007, Judgment.

I. FACTS

In 1984, Congress amended the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands, 48 U.S.C. § 1541 et seq., (the “ROA”), which functions as the constitution of the U.S. Virgin Islands. Legislature of the Virgin Islands the authority to establish a local appellate court in the territory. See48 U.S.C. § 1611. ²

On September 30, 2004, the Legislature passed Bill No. 25–0213 to establish the first local appellate court in the territory—the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands (the “Supreme Court”). Then Governor Charles W. Turnbull (the “Governor,” or “Governor Turnbull”) approved the bill on October 29, 2004, as Act No. 6687. The first line of Act 6687 states that its purpose is “[t]o amend title 4, Virgin Islands Code to establish the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands and ... for other purposes.” ³ Specifically, Act 6687 provided:

Title 4 Virgin Islands Code is amended by adding Chapter 2 to read as follows:

...

The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands shall hold regular sessions in Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, commencing at such times and continuing for such periods as the Court from time to time directs.

Act No. 6687, § 21(b)(2); 4 V.I.C. § 21(b)(2) (2004).

In February, 2005, the Legislature passed Bill No. 26–0003. Section 61 of Bill No. 26–0003 sought to amend Act 6687, codified at title 4, section 21(b)(2) of the Virgin Islands Code, to provide that the Supreme Court would hold regular sessions on St. Croix instead of St. Thomas. The Governor vetoed section 61 of Bill No. 26–0003. The Legislature overrode the veto, enacting the bill ⁴ as Act No. 6730, thereby requiring the Supreme Court to hold regular sessions on St. Croix. See4 V.I.C. § 21(b)(2). ⁵

On September 18, 2005, the Legislature passed Bill No. 26–0083. Section 2 of Bill No. 26–0083 stated the following:

The Virgin Islands Public Finance Authority shall make available, forthwith, to the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands the sum of 5.75 million dollars to construct and establish the Virgin Islands Supreme Court on St. Croix.

The Governor vetoed the bill on December 2, 2005. On December 15, 2005, the Legislature overrode the veto, enacting Bill 26–0083 as Act No. 6816.

On July 19, 2006, the Governor nominated Judges Maria M. Cabret, Ive A. Swan and Rhys S. Hodge to serve as justices on the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands.

On July 28, 2006, the Governor commenced an action for declaratory relief against the Legislature in the Superior Court. In his complaint, the Governor alleged that,

[a]lthough Section 2(b) of the Revised Organic Act specifically states that the capitol and seat of government of the Virgin Islands shall be located in the city of Charlotte Amalie on the island of St. Thomas, and Section 8 of the Revised Organic Act states only gives the Legislature ... the authority to enact laws that are consistent with the Revised Organic Act, Defendant has chosen to disregard these provisions of the Revised Organic Act and has enacted legislation relocating the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands from St. Thomas to St. Croix and appropriated funds for the construction and establishment of the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands on the island of St. Croix.

(Compl. 1–2, ¶ 2, Turnbull v. Legislature, Super. Ct. Civ. No. 394/2006, Jul. 28, 2006.) The Governor sought the following declarations from the court. First, “that the Revised Organic Act does not vest [the Legislature] with any authority to relocate any branch of [the] Government of the Virgin Islands from the city of Charlotte Amalie in St. Thomas to the island of St. Croix.” ( Id. at 5, ¶ 1.) Second, “that Act No. 6730 and Act No. 6816 violate Sections 8 and 2(b) of the Revised Organic Act and are, therefore, null and void.” ( Id. at 5, ¶ 2.) Third, “that consistent with the Revised Organic Act the regular sessions of the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands shall be held in St. Thomas and the Supreme Court shall be established and constructed in the city of Charlotte Amalie in St. Thomas.” ( Id. at 5, ¶ 3.)

On October 10, 2006, the Legislature filed a motion to dismiss the Governor's complaint. The Legislature argued that no case or controversy existed between the parties, and that the Governor lacked standing to sue. Additionally, the Legislature asserted that the case involved a non-justiciable political question. Finally, the Legislature claimed that it was entitled to absolute immunity.

On October 24, 2006, the Governor called the Legislature into a special session, in which he requested that the Legislature consider his nominees for the Supreme Court.⁶ On October 27, 2006, the special session of the Legislature convened and confirmed the three nominees as justices of the Supreme Court.

Also on October 27, 2006, the Legislature passed Bill No. 26–0338 which, in sum, provides that because the Public Finance Authority did not have $5,750,000 available,

[t]here is appropriated from the General Fund in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, the sum of $5,750,000, to the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands for the establishment and construction of the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands on the island of St. Croix. The sum remains available until expended.

Bill No. 26–0338.

In an order dated November 13, 2006, the Superior Court denied the Legislature's motion to dismiss. The court found that the case involved a justiciable case or controversy, and that the Governor had standing to sue. The court further found that the Legislature was the proper defendant, and was not entitled to immunity.

On November 17, 2006, the Governor moved for summary judgment on his claims against the Legislature. He argued that the Supreme Court was part of the “[t]he capital and seat of government” and as such, was required to be located in Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas pursuant to Section 2(b) of the ROA. ⁷ In the Governor's view, Section 61 of Act No. 6730 and Section 2 of Act No. 6816 violated the ROA by requiring the Supreme Court to hold regular sessions on St. Croix and providing funds for the construction of the Supreme Court on St. Croix. The Governor also argued that the Legislature lacked the authority under Section 8 of the ROA ⁸ to enact Section 61 of Act No. 6730 and Section 2 of Act No. 6816.

On November 22, 2006, the Governor approved Bill No. 26–0338 as Act No. 6900. However, the Governor noted that he only did so because he did not intend to impede the establishment of the Supreme Court. (Letter from Charles E. Turnbull, Governor of the Virgin Islands, to Lorraine L. Berry, President of the Legislature 1, Nov. 22, 2006.)

On November 29, 2006, the Legislature filed a motion to vacate, for reconsideration of, or to amend the November 13, 2006, order denying the motion to dismiss.

A hearing on all pending motions was conducted on December 13, 2006. On January 19, 2007, the Superior Court denied the Legislature's motion to vacate, for reconsideration of, or to amend the November 13, 2006, order denying the motion to dismiss. It also granted the Governor's motion for summary judgment. The court agreed with the Governor that the laws in question violated the ROA's requirement that the capitol and seat of government be located on St. Thomas. Accordingly, it entered a judgment declaring that “Section 61 of Act No. 6730 and Section 2 of [Act No.] 6816 are hereby declared null and void[.]” (Judgment 1, Jan. 19, 2007.)

On January 25, 2007, the Legislature timely filed its notice of appeal from the January 19, 2007, judgment. This appeal raised the following issues: (1) whether the Superior Court erred in failing to dismiss this matter on grounds that no case or controversy existed between the parties; (2) whether the Superior Court erred failing to dismiss the matter on grounds that it was a non-justiciable political question; (3) whether the Superior Court erred in failing to dismiss the action on grounds that the Legislature was entitled to immunity; and (4) whether the Superior Court erred in declaring that Section 61 of Act No. 6730 and Section 2 of Act No. 6816 violated Sections 2(b) and 8(a) of the Revised Organic Act.

II. JURISDICTION & STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court has jurisdiction over appeals of final judgments and orders of the Superior Court filed before January 29, 2007, the date on which the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands was certified as ready to assume such jurisdiction. SeeRevised Organic Act of 1954 23A, 48 U.S.C. § 1613a; ⁹ Act No. 6687 § 4 (October 29, 2004); see also Joseph v. People of the V.I., Criminal No. 05–13, 2008 WL 5663569 (D.V.I.2008) (explaining that this Court retained its appellate jurisdiction through the date of the certification of the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands).

The Superior Court's findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, and conclusions of law are subject to plenary review. Saludes v. Ramos, 744 F.2d 992 (3d Cir.1984); Poleon v. Gov't of the V.I., 184 F.Supp.2d 428 (D.V.I.2002). We review de novo the Superior Court's denial of the Legislature's motion to dismiss. See Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Pharmacia Corp., 554 F.3d 342, 346 (3d Cir.2009). Our review of...