Opinion ID: 2103506
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Denial of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

Text: The primary relief that plaintiffs seek in this court is reversal of the trial court's denial of their motion for a TRO on the ground that Public Act 87-838 is unconstitutional, for the following reasons: (1) the Act is an invalid attempt to amend a substantive law by an appropriation bill; (2) alternatively, if the Act is viewed not as an appropriations bill but as a substantive bill, it violates the single-subject rule of the Illinois Constitution; (3) the State's transfer of moneys from the State Pensions Fund to the general revenue fund is an unconstitutional impairment of pension benefits; and (4) even if Public Act 87-838 did not impair plaintiffs' pension contract rights, the legislative finding of excess moneys in the State Pensions Fund was an irrebuttable presumption that violated the plaintiffs' right to due process. Defendants challenge the justiciability of the controversy at bar, asserting that the plaintiffs lack standing to sue and that the appeal is moot because the transfer of funds has occurred. In addition, defendants interpose a waiver issue premised on the fact that plaintiffs do not specifically argue that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for a TRO. Reaching the merits, defendants contend that Public Act 87-838 is a valid, substantive enactment of the legislature, not a true appropriation, and that the current members of the General Assembly are not bound by decisions of prior legislators with respect to the use of public funds in special accounts. Further, defendants contend that the Illinois Constitution's pension contract clause does not endow members of retirement systems with a contractual right to require a specific level of funding, and therefore the alleged diminution of pension funds is not an unconstitutional impairment of contract rights. Defendants also argue that plaintiffs do not have a contractual right to the use of the State Pensions Fund, notwithstanding language in the State Finance Act that dedicates the proceeds of unclaimed property to the reduction of accrued actuarial reserve deficiencies in the State retirement systems. Finally, defendants state that the legislative finding of excess funds in the State Pensions Fund was not inaccurate under the circumstances and does not afford plaintiffs a base upon which to attack the validity of the Act. This court finds itself in the untenable position of reviewing plaintiffs' vital constitutional challenges in the context of an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to enjoin State officials from undertaking acts that the legislature and chief executive officer of this State deemed necessary to balance the budget of the State of Illinois for fiscal year 1992. The judicial branch of the government is not charged with political or legislative decisionmaking and its role in the government's balance of powers has certain defined limits. One of these limits is refraining from striking down legislation unless it offends the State or Federal Constitutions. We agree with plaintiffs that the judicial branch of government must ultimately decide whether the challenged provision of Public Act 87-838 is constitutionally sound. However, we agree with defendants that the specific, much narrower issue on appealwhether the transfer of $21 million should have been temporarily enjoined by the circuit courthas been rendered moot by the actual transfer of the funds in question. Plaintiffs urge this court to apply the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine (see, e.g., People ex rel. Wallace v. Labrenz (1952), 411 Ill. 618, 622, 104 N.E.2d 769) because there is a substantial public interest in this court's determination of the validity of the transfer and the issue may recur at any time the legislature faces another shortfall and must search for funds to balance the budget. Plaintiffs' contention is not without merit; however, a basic tenet of justiciability holds that [r]eviewing courts will not decide moot or abstract questions or render advisory opinions. Courts of review ordinarily will not consider issues where they are not essential to the disposition of the cause or where the result will not be affected regardless of how the issues are decided. ( Barth v. Reagan (1990), 139 Ill.2d 399, 419, 151 Ill.Dec. 534, 564 N.E.2d 1196; see also Condon v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1990), 136 Ill.2d 95, 99, 143 Ill.Dec. 271, 554 N.E.2d 206 (reviewing courts will not consider issues merely to establish precedent).) Moreover, this court will not address constitutional issues that are unnecessary for the disposition of the case under review ( Anundson v. City of Chicago (1970), 44 Ill.2d 491, 499, 256 N.E.2d 1) even though the court acquires jurisdiction of the case because a constitutional question is involved ( Stigler v. City of Chicago (1971), 48 Ill.2d 20, 22, 268 N.E.2d 26). In the instant case, our opinion as to the validity of the transfer of funds will not affect that which has already occurredthe transfer of $21 million out of the State Pensions Fund pursuant to the Emergency Budget of Fiscal Year 1992. However, our opinion on certain of the constitutional issues raised particularly those concerning the impairment of plaintiffs' pension contractsmight influence or even foreclose the circuit court from deciding similar issues that are currently pending in that court. The purpose of temporary injunctive relief is to prevent a threatened wrong or injury pending a full hearing on the merits, not to finally adjudicate the merits. (See Toushin v. City of Chicago (1974), 23 Ill.App.3d 797, 801, 320 N.E.2d 202; Spencer v. Community Hospital (1975), 30 Ill.App.3d 285, 287-88, 332 N.E.2d 525.) In Spencer, the plaintiff doctor sought preliminary injunctive relief to prevent the defendant hospital board from holding a disciplinary hearing. The circuit court denied plaintiffs' motion and the hearing took place. Subsequently, the appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot, but stated, The finding of the trial court denying the preliminary injunction is not dispositive of the merits of the case, and plaintiff is not foreclosed from a full and complete hearing on all the issues contained in the complaint. [Citations.] ( Spencer, 30 Ill.App.3d at 287-88, 332 N.E.2d 525.) The Spencer court further recognized that because the appeal was from a denial of preliminary injunction, the sole question for review [was] whether the trial court abused its discretion. ( Spencer, 30 Ill.App.3d at 287, 332 N.E.2d 525.) We conclude that, in the instant case, the circuit court retained substantial discretion in declining to enter the TRO at that stage of the proceedings. Plaintiffs' assertion of constitutional challenges did not compel the trial court to grant or deny temporary injunctive relief. As the Toushin court stated, While the [constitutional challenge to the ordinance in question] is a serious one [citation], normally an attack on the constitutionality of a statute should not be resolved upon application for a temporary injunction. [Citations.] (Emphasis added.) Toushin, 23 Ill.App.3d at 803, 320 N.E.2d 202. We acknowledge the seriousness of the plaintiffs' constitutional challenges to the transfer of funds pursuant to Public Act 87-838, but we believe that the merits of those challenges should be resolved in the first instance by the circuit court in its adjudication of the plaintiffs' suit for mandamus, declaratory judgment, and other relief. By its nature, provisional injunctive relief of the type sought in the instant appeal depends on numerous equitable concerns and is not available as a matter of right. We caution, however, that our decision to dismiss the earlier appeal and the instant appeal, for want of justiciability, is not to be taken as a judicial finding that the legislation in issue is constitutional. Plaintiffs persist in urging this court to reach the merits of the appeal, for another reason: the circuit court, in denying their motion for a TRO, rejected their contention that Public Act 87-838 is unconstitutional. Therefore, plaintiffs contend, our dismissal of the appeal lets stand the circuit court's ruling and defeats plaintiffs' ability to obtain review of their constitutional challenges to the transfer of moneys from the State Pensions Fund to the general revenue fund. Apparently, plaintiffs are concerned that the circuit court based its order on the belief that the transfer of funds was not prohibited by the impairment of contracts clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions. According to plaintiffs, the circuit court arrived at that conclusion based on its interpretation of this court's opinion in People ex rel. Illinois Federation of Teachers v. Lindberg (1975), 60 Ill.2d 266, 326 N.E.2d 749. Lindberg involved the Governor's authority to reduce appropriations set by the legislature to alleviate underfunding in several teacher pension funds. This court upheld the Governor's constitutionally derived authority to reduce appropriations and further noted that the participants in the State-funded teachers' pensions were not constitutionally entitled to specific levels of funding. While we express no opinion regarding Lindberg `s application to the merits of the instant case, we do not believe that the circuit court's denial of temporary injunctive relief is in any way determinative of that court's ability to reach a final adjudication of the merits of plaintiffs' pending lawsuit. If plaintiffs prevail on all or part of their case, the circuit court is the proper body to fashion whatever relief may be appropriate. The issues that have been framed in the instant appeal appear to differ significantly from the issue decided in Lindberg. We cannot assume that plaintiffs have been precluded by the circuit court's remarks from fully presenting and arguing the merits of their claims. (See Spencer, 30 Ill.App.3d 285, 332 N.E.2d 525.) In the case at bar, the circuit court denied the motion for a TRO at a time when plaintiffs had not yet amended their complaint to add a count specifically directed at the newly enacted Public Act 87-838. The circuit court had the benefit of some, but not all, of the constitutional arguments that the parties have subsequently developed as part of this appeal. For that reason we decline to render what can only be an advisory opinion, in light of the fact that the transfer of funds authorized by Public Act 87-838 has occurred and can no longer be enjoined. All other issues remain in the circuit court and are for that court to decide in the first instance, after full consideration of the merits. For the reasons set forth, we affirm the decision of the trial court in No. 74181, and we dismiss the appeal from the denial of the TRO in No. 73485. No. 73485Appeal dismissed. No. 74181Affirmed.