Opinion ID: 1901333
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Denial of Injunctive Relief

Text: The Universities sought to enjoin the Executive Parties from implementing proration in a manner which excludes funds appropriated for K-12 salaries prior to calculating the proration percentage. In granting the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, the trial court denied the Universities' motion. The Universities now ask this Court to reverse the order denying their motion and remand the cause with instructions to the court below to grant the relief [they] requested. For a number of reasons, we decline to instruct the trial court to enjoin the Chief Executive Officer of the State in the performance of his constitutional and statutory duties. First, in vacating the February injunction and reversing the April injunction, we have placed the parties in the positions they occupied at the outset of this litigation. The order in effect at that time was the Governor's proration order of February 2, in which he proposed to do precisely what the Universities seek. In light of today's opinion, it cannot be presumed that he will deviate from his original order. The Governor explained in his March 6 affidavit that he considered himself bound by the Attorney General's opinion as he understood it. Specifically, the Governor interpreted the opinion to say that the 1995 directive worked a fundamental change in the manner in which proration is properly applied to the ETF. Although he expressed his intention to instruct the relevant executive branch personnel to ensure that all funds allocated to salaries are sent to the local school boards in full, his intention was made subject to an order from the court to the contrary. Today's opinion is such an order, that is, we hold that the Attorney General's opinion, at least as it was understood by the Governor, is incorrect. At this point, we will do no more, for [c]ourts, possessed of neither the purse nor the sword, are generally reluctant to issue orders they cannot enforce. Ex parte James, 713 So.2d 869, 893 (Ala.1997) (Maddox, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The sanctions in § 41-4-90 and § 41-4-96 for violations of the proration statute would seem to render superfluous any injunction directed to the respective Executive Parties. Because of the Governor's February 2 proration order, the Universities have no basis for a complaint. In summary, the appeals in cases no. 1000951, 1000952, 1000953, 1000954, 1000959, 1000995, and 1000998 are dismissed, and the February injunction is vacated. In cases no. 1001233, 1001234, 1001239, 1001240, 1001241, 1001270, and 1001300, the order is reversed insofar as it granted injunctive relief, and the April injunction is dissolved. Further, in cases no. 1001233, 1001234, 1001239, 1001240, and 1001241, to the extent it denied injunctive relief, the order is affirmed. 1000951VACATED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 1000952VACATED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 1000953VACATED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 1000954VACATED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 1000959VACATED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 1000995VACATED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 1000998VACATED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 1001233AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART. 1001234AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART. 1001239AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART. 1001240AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART. 1001241AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART. 1001270REVERSED. 1001300REVERSED. HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, JOHNSTONE, HARWOOD, and STUART, JJ., concur. MOORE, C.J., concurs in the result.