Opinions of the Justices to the Senate

• Decision Date: 31 May 1977
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 652

363 N.E.2d 652

372 Mass. 883

OPINIONS OF THE JUSTICES TO THE SENATE Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

May 31, 1977.

On May 31, 1977, the Justices submitted the following answers to questions propounded to them by the Senate.

[372 Mass. 884] To the Honorable the Senate of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

The Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court respectfully submit their answers to the questions set out in an order adopted by the Senate on March 7, 1977, and transmitted to us on March 11, 1977.

Pending before the General Court is a bill, House No. 4400, entitled, 'An Act relative to the organization, management and financing of the judicial system.' Transmitted with the order was a copy of the bill which, the order recites, 'seeks to substantially reorganize the structure, management and financing of the judicial system of the commonwealth; and . . . to effect major changes affecting the various courts, the jurisdiction of said courts and the duties of the judges of said courts and the management of all other court personnel . . ..' The order further recites that serious doubts exist as to the constitutionality of certain parts of the bill if enacted into law.

The opinions of the Justices are requested as to the following questions:

'1. Does section 2A of chapter 211 of the General Laws, as appearing in section 781 of said bill, violate part 1, article 29 of the Constitution by vesting in the chief justice of the supreme judicial court those '2. Does the second paragraph of section 2A of chapter 211 of the General Laws, as appearing in section 781 of said bill, which intends to empower the chief justice of the supreme judicial court to revise or abolish such divisions of the superior or district court as he deems the sound administration of justice requires constitute an invasion of the legislative power in violation of part 1, article 30 of the Constitution?

powers which part 1, article 29, vests in the supreme judicial court as a whole?

'3. Do the fourth and fifth paragraphs of section 2A of chapter 211 of the General Laws, as appearing in section 781 of said bill, which intends to empower the chief justice of the supreme judicial court to transfer and authorize the transfer of any cases or matters from the superior court of one county to an adjoining county or of any cases or matters from one division of the district court to another division of the district court contravene the provisions and intent of article 13 of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution as to venue of criminal prosecutions?

'4. Does section 3A of chapter 211 of the General Laws, as appearing in section 783 of the said bill, which intends to give to the chief justice of the supreme judicial court the exclusive right to appoint an administrator of courts, violate part 1, article 29 of the Constitution by vesting in the chief justice those powers which part 1, article 29, vests in the supreme judicial court as a whole?

'5. Do the provisions of the first paragraph of section 1369 of said bill, which provides that the judge of the land court, the chief judge of probate and the judges of the housing courts shall be transferred to the superior court into which said courts are merged pursuant to said paragraph and become associate justices of the superior court, constitute demotions as to each of said judges in violation of part 2, chapter 3, article 1 of the Constitution?

'6. Does the fifth paragraph of section 1368 of said bill which provides that all justices and special justices of the municipal courts, including the municipal court of the city of Boston, existing district courts and juvenile courts shall become justices and special justices of the district court created by section 892 of said bill, and the first paragraph of section 1369 of said bill which provides that the judge and the associate judges of the land court, the chief judge, judges and special judges of probate and insolvency and judges of the housing court shall become associate judges of the superior court violate the constitutional powers of the executive department to appoint and commission judges and violate the tenure of their commissions guaranteed by part 2, chapter 3, article 1 of the Constitution?

'7. Does the power and authority of the General Court to modify, enlarge, diminish, transfer and abolish the jurisdiction of all courts subordinate to the supreme judicial court extend to the merger of the probate court that is intended by the provisions of the first paragraph of section 1369 of said bill, whereby the said probate court, the housing courts, land court and courts of insolvency are to be merged with and into the superior court, despite the specific references to the probate court and probate judges contained in the Constitution, and more specifically in part 2, chapter 3, article 4 thereof?'

The bill, consisting of 312 pages and 1378 sections, was drafted to implement the recommendations for reorganization of the judicial branch submitted by the Governor's Select Committee on Judicial Needs. ¹

While enactment of [372 Mass. 887] this bill would effect major changes in the structure and organization of the judicial system, we limit our opinions, as we must, to the specific constitutional questions presented. See Part II, c. 3, art. 2, of the Massachusetts Constitution, as amended by art. 85 of the Amendments. Answer of Justices, 299 Mass. 617, 619--620, 13 N.E.2d 787 (1938). ²

1. The first question inquires whether various provisions of § 781 of the bill 'violate part 1, article 29 of the Constitution by vesting in the chief justice of the supreme judicial court those powers which part 1, article 29, vests in the supreme judicial court as a whole.' Section 781 would insert § 2A in G.L. c. 211. Under the new statute, '(t)he chief justice of the supreme judicial court shall be the executive head of the judicial system of the commonwealth.' He would be required to prepare and submit to the budget director a budget for the entire judicial branch and, except where otherwise provided by law, to appoint and to prescribe the duties of all officers and employees of the judicial system. In addition he would have the authority to transfer or remove any such officer or employee. He would be empowered also to establish, revise, or abolish divisions of the Superior and District Courts; to assign, temporarily, District Court judges to the Superior Court and Superior Court judges to the District Court; to transfer and to authorize the chief justice of the Superior Court to transfer cases from one county or division to an adjoining county; to transfer and to authorize the chief justice of the District Court to transfer cases from one division to another division; and to establish judicial regions and to appoint administrative justices for each region, one from the Superior Court and one from the District Court. ³

Article 29 of our Declaration of Rights provides: 'It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice. It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit. It is, therefore, not only the best policy, but for the security of the rights of the people, and of every citizen, that the judges of the supreme judicial court should hold their offices as long as they behave themselves well; and that they should have honorable salaries ascertained and established by standing laws.' The language of the article sheds little light on the question what powers are vested in the full court of the Supreme Judicial Court. General Laws c. 211, § 3, as amended by St.1973, c. 1114, § 44, provides that 'the justices of the supreme judicial court shall . . . have general superintendence of the administration of all courts of inferior jurisdiction . . . and it may issue . . . such orders, directions and rules as may be necessary or desirable for the furtherance of justice, the regular execution of the laws, the improvement of the administration of such courts, and the securing of their proper and efficient administration.' This statement confirmed to the Supreme Judicial Court the powers of judicial administration inherent in that court. In re De Saulnier (No. 1), 360 Mass. 757, 758--759, 274 N.E.2d 454 (1971). The repository of the inherent powers of judicial administration is the full court. Legislation which purports to divest the full court of these powers would be ineffective as beyond the power of the General Court. We do not mean to suggest that all the matters over which the Chief Justice would be given authority by the proposed statute would be subject to the inherent power of the full court. Indeed, most would not. The powers and duties that would be conferred on the Chief Justice with regard to administration of the Superior Court and the District Courts are powers the Legislature could confer on any appropriate State officer under its constitutional authority 'to erect and constitute judicatories and courts of record, or other courts.' Part II, c. 1, § 1, art. 3, of the Massachusetts Constitution. However, any delegation of the inherent powers of the court is a matter on which only the full court, and not the Legislature, may act.

The purpose of the provisions in § 2A, designating the Chief Justice 'executive head of the judicial system of the commonwealth' and conferring on him certain administrative duties and responsibilities, is clear and compelling. The courts of the Commonwealth are burdened with intolerable caseloads. Opinion of Justices, 362 Mass. 895, 905, 284 N.E.2d 908 (1972). The resultant delay in the adjudication of cases is exacerbated by what the Governor's Select Committee on Judicial Needs described as 'the extraordinary fragmentation of jurisdiction and responsibility.' Report on the In so...