McInnish v. Riley
Decision Date | 30 September 2005 |
Docket Number | 1040436. |
Citation | 925 So.2d 174 |
Parties | Hugh McINNISH v. Bob RILEY, as Governor of the State of Alabama, et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Troy King, atty. gen., and Kevin C. Newsom, deputy atty. gen., and Charles B. Cambell, asst. atty. gen., for appellees Bob Riley and Kay Ivey.
Mose W. Stuart IV, asst. atty. gen., Department of Finance-Legal Division, for appellees James Allen Main and Robert L. Childree.
Joe Espy III and J. Flynn Mozingo of Melton, Espy & Williams, P.C., Montgomery, for appellee the Joint Fiscal Committee.
Hugh McInnish appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court upholding the constitutionality of statutes he challenged as a taxpayer in this declaratory-judgment action. We reverse and remand.
This dispute involves the validity of "community services grants" disbursed pursuant to Act No. 98-677, Ala. Acts 1998, codified at Ala.Code 1975, §§ 29-2-120 to -124, and portions of Act No. 2004-456, the education appropriations act, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, which appropriated $11.7 million for the disbursements. Section 29-2-121 creates a "permanent Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Community Services Grants" ("the Committee"). The voting members of the Committee consist of eight members of the legislature, including "the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee; the Chair of the Senate Finance and Taxation-Education Committee; [and] the Chair of the Senate Committee on Economic Expansion and Trade" (hereinafter collectively "the Chairs"). Id. The five remaining legislators are appointed to the Committee by the Chairs. Specifically, pursuant to § 29-2-121, the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee appoints three members from the House Ways and Means Committee, the Chair of the Senate Finance and Taxation-Education Committee appoints one member from the Senate Finance and Taxation-Education Committee, and the Chair of the Senate Committee on Economic Expansion and Trade appoints one member of the Senate Committee on Economic Expansion and Trade. Finally, the "State Superintendent of Education and [the] State Finance Director [serve on the Committee] in advisory capacities." § 29-2-121 (emphasis added).
The duties of the Committee are set forth in § 29-2-123:
(Emphasis added.)
On May 26, 2004, McInnish sued (1) Bob Riley, Governor of the State of Alabama (2) Drayton Nabers,1 then director of finance, (3) Robert L. Childree, comptroller, and (4) Kay Ivey, state treasurer, in their official capacities. The complaint sought a judgment declaring that Ala.Code 1975, § 29-2-123, and Act No. 2004-456 insofar as it appropriates moneys to fund the community-services grants violate the separation-of-powers provisions of the Constitution of Alabama. More specifically, the complaint averred that "[t]he granting or awarding of funds appropriated under Act 2004-456 for expenditure by a committee of the legislature, as set forth in Ala.Code § 29-2-123, constitutes encroachment of the executive powers specifically reserved to the executive branch of government by the Alabama Constitution." (Emphasis added.) It further sought an injunction preventing the distribution of any funds pursuant to § 29-2-123. On July 23, 2004, the Joint Fiscal Committee of the legislature2 filed a "motion to intervene," which the trial court granted.
Following an evidentiary hearing on September 28, 2004, the trial court entered an order containing the following pertinent factual findings:
(Emphasis in original.)
The trial court rejected McInnish's constitutional challenge and entered a judgment for the defendants. McInnish appealed, contending that "the trial court erred in refusing to declare that Ala.Code § 29-2-123 and [portions of] Act [No.] 2004-456 are unconstitutional." McInnish's brief, at 10. The attorney general filed a brief on behalf of Governor Riley and State Treasurer Ivey (hereinafter referred to as "the executive-branch defendants"). No separate brief was filed on behalf of the finance director and the comptroller.
The facts are undisputed, and the standard of review of the trial court's judgment as to the constitutionality of legislation is well established. This Court "`should be very reluctant to hold any act unconstitutional.'" Ex parte D.W., 835 So.2d 186, 189 (Ala.2002) (quoting Ex parte Boyd, 796 So.2d 1092, 1094 (Ala.2001)). "[I]n passing upon the constitutionality of a legislative act, the courts uniformly approach the question with every presumption and intendment in favor of its validity, and seek to sustain rather than strike down the enactment of a coordinate branch of the government." Alabama State Fed'n of Labor v. McAdory, 246 Ala. 1, 9, 18 So.2d 810, 815 (1944) (emphasis added). This is so, because "it is the recognized duty of the court to sustain the act unless it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that it is violative of the fundamental law." 246 Ala. at 9, 18 So.2d at 815 (emphasis added). Guided by these principles, we consider whether the legislature, in authorizing the spending of appropriated funds by a legislative committee created for that purpose, has usurped the role of the executive branch in violation of the principle of separation of powers.
Springer v. Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189, 201, 48 S.Ct. 480, 72 L.Ed. 845 (1928). (emphasis added). The Constitution of Alabama is of the former sort, that is, it "expressly adopts the doctrine of separation of powers that is only implicit in the Constitution of the United States." Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Ctr. Auth. v. City of Birmingham, 912 So.2d 204, 212 (Ala.2005).
The doctrine is enshrined in Ala. Const. 1901, §§ 42 and 43, which provide:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. K.E.L.
...beyond reasonable doubt that it is violative of the fundamental law.’ 246 Ala. at 9, 18 So.2d at 815 (emphasis added)." McInnish v. Riley, 925 So. 2d 174, 178 (Ala. 2005)." ‘ "The doctrine of vagueness ... originates in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Lanzetta v. New......
-
Chism v. Jefferson County
...by Jefferson County is akin to the action of the Alabama legislature this Court struck down as unconstitutional in McInnish v. Riley, 925 So.2d 174 (Ala. 2005), because one branch of government was both appropriating funds and spending I also write to point out that when ad valorem property......
-
Magee v. Boyd
...judgments.6 We note that "'[t]he "political question" doctrine is grounded primarily in the separation of powers.'" McInnish v. Riley, 925 So. 2d 174, 187 (Ala. 2005) (quoting Fletcher v. Kentucky, 163 S.W.2d 852, 860 (Ky. 2005)). In BJCCA, we declined to consider a "nonjusticiablepolitical......
-
Peak v. City of Tuscaloosa
...Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, 33 So.3d 560 (Ala.2009), the Alabama Supreme Court explained: “In McInnish v. Riley, 925 So.2d 174, 178 (Ala.2005), this Court further stated: “ ‘[T]he standard of review of the trial court's judgment as to the constitutionality of legislation......