Opinion ID: 1297060
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Delegation of Judicial Power

Text: Harrell argues that Section 22-10-17.1 violates Article III, Section 1, and Article VI, Section 1, of the New Mexico Constitution because it is an unconstitutional delegation of judicial power. Article III, Section 1, is our state's constitutional provision for separation of powers: The powers of the government of this state are divided into three distinct departments, the legislative, executive and judicial, and no person or collection of persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments, shall exercise any powers properly belonging to either of the others, except as in this constitution otherwise expressly directed or permitted. N.M. Const. art. III, § 1 (Repl.Pamp.1992). The judicial power of the state is vested in the various courts listed in Article VI, Section 1, of the constitution. Harrell contends that the legislature has unconstitutionally attempted to limit the power and authority of the judiciary by vesting an arbitrator with sole authority to determine all issues of fact and law related to a school employee's discharge and restricting judicial review of the arbitrator's decision to issues regarding fraud or corruption of the arbitral process. The separation of powers principle is expressed implicitly in the United States Constitution and explicitly in nearly all state constitutions, including the New Mexico Constitution in Article III, Section 1. See generally Albert E. Utton, Constitutional Limitations on the Exercise of Judicial Functions by Administrative Agencies, 7 Nat.Resources J. 599, 600-01 (1967). The theory of separation of powers is derived from concerns that concentrating judicial, legislative, and executive powers in a person or group of persons would create a system with an inherent tendency toward tyrannical actions. 1 Rotunda & Nowak, supra, § 3.12, at 351-52; 1 Davis & Pierce, supra, § 2.1, at 34; see also The Federalist No. 47 (James Madison) (The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.). The New Mexico and federal constitutions accordingly provide for the division of government into three distinct branches, each responsible for performing a different functionlegislation, execution of the laws, and adjudication. See N.M. Const. arts. IV, V, VI (Repl.Pamp.1992). It is unrealistic, however, to assume that the functions performed by the three branches do notand should notblend and overlap. The United States Supreme Court has discussed the overlapping of powers contemplated by the Federal Constitution: [T]he constitution by no means contemplates total separation of each of these three essential branches of Government.... The men who met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 were practical statesmen, experienced in politics, who viewed the principle of separation of powers as a vital check against tyranny. But they likewise saw that a hermetic sealing off of the three branches of Government from one another would preclude the establishment of a Nation capable of governing itself effectively. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 121, 96 S.Ct. 612, 683, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (per curiam); see also Felix Frankfurter, The Public and Government 78 (1930) (Enforcement of a rigid conception of separation of powers would make modern government impossible.). The separation of powers provision in Article III, Section 1, thus should not be considered as an absolute bar to performance by one of the three branches of some functions performed by the other two branches or to delegation of some functions of one of the branches to some entity. See 1 Stein et al., supra, § 3.03[6] (It is well recognized that Congress may delegate judicial, that is, adjudicatory functions to administrative agencies.); see generally 1 Davis & Pierce, supra, § 2.8, at 90-91 (discussing policy reasons for permitting delegation of adjudicatory functions). The Supreme Court has upheld statutory delegations of adjudicatory power to agencies on numerous occasions. See, e.g., Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381, 400, 60 S.Ct. 907, 915-16, 84 L.Ed. 1263 (1940) (Nor is there an invalid delegation of judicial power. To hold that there was would be to turn back the clock on at least a half century of administrative law.). Similarly, our legislature has empowered certain administrative agencies to adjudicate cases, and this Court has found such delegations to pass constitutional muster. See, e.g., Wylie Corp., 104 N.M. at 753, 726 P.2d at 1383 (holding that creation of a workmen's compensation administration and vesting in it the determination of controversies thereunder, is a valid exercise of legislative power.). The separation of powers doctrine does not prohibit every exercise of judicial functions by individuals or groups outside the judiciary. As one commentator has noted, the real thrust of the separation of powers philosophy is that each department of government must be kept free from the control or coercive influence of the other departments. 1 Frank E. Cooper, State Administrative Law 16 (1965) (footnote omitted). The doctrine of separation of powers must therefore be viewed not as an end in itself, but as a general principle intended to be applied so as to maintain the balance between the three branches of government, preserve their respective independence and integrity, and prevent the concentration of unchecked power in the hands of any one branch. David v. Vesta Co., 45 N.J. 301, 212 A.2d 345, 358-59 (1965) (footnote omitted). The interests protected by maintaining separation of powers can best be furthered, we believe, not by requiring a total separation of functions among the branches but by ensuring that adequate checks exist to keep each branch free from the control or coercive influence of the other branches. The judiciary thus must maintain the power of check over the exercise of judicial functions by quasi-judicial tribunals in order that those adjudications will not violate our constitution. The principle of check requires that the essential attributes of judicial power, vis-a-vis other governmental branches and agencies, remain in the courts. See McHugh, 777 P.2d at 107. Our Court of Appeals has defined the essence of judicial power as the final authority to render and enforce a judgment. Otero v. Zouhar, 102 N.M. 493, 502, 697 P.2d 493, 502 (Ct.App.1984), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 102 N.M. 482 (1985); see also Firelock Inc. v. District Court, 776 P.2d 1090, 1094 (Colo.1989) (final authority to render and enforce judgment or remedy is essence of judicial power); Attorney General v. Johnson, 282 Md. 274, 385 A.2d 57, 64 (same), appeal dismissed, 439 U.S. 805, 99 S.Ct. 60, 58 L.Ed.2d 97 (1978). Judicial review of the arbitrator's decision allows the court, rather than the arbitrator, to be the final authority rendering and enforcing the judgment, thus retaining essential judicial power within the judiciary. We hold that the principle of check requires that courts have an opportunity to review decisions of arbitrators in statutorily compelled arbitrations. See, e.g., McHugh, 777 P.2d at 106 (principle of check requires that courts retain power to make enforceable, binding judgments through review of agency determinations); Kentucky Comm'n on Human Rights v. Fraser, 625 S.W.2d 852, 855 (Ky.1981) (administrative adjudications are not unconstitutional usurpation of judicial power where judicial review is available); David, 212 A.2d at 359 (administrative adjudications must be subjected to judicial scrutiny for purposes of separation of powers to prevent unchecked power); see also Peick v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 724 F.2d 1247, 1277 (7th Cir.1983) (compulsory arbitration constitutional where it is merely the first step in dispute resolution with subsequent court review), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1259, 104 S.Ct. 3554, 82 L.Ed.2d 855 (1984); Republic Indus., Inc. v. Teamsters Joint Council No. 83, 718 F.2d 628, 640 (4th Cir.1983) (legislatures may mandate arbitration so long as fair procedures are provided and ultimate judicial review is available), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1259, 104 S.Ct. 3553, 82 L.Ed.2d 855 (1984); Bayscene Resident Negotiators v. Bayscene Mobilehome Park, 15 Cal.App.4th 119, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 626, 634 (Ct.1993) (constitutionality of statutorily mandated arbitration depends upon whether meaningful judicial review of the arbitrator's decision is provided). We use due-process analysis to determine whether the judicial review provided in the compulsory arbitration statute is adequate to reserve ultimate judicial power to the judiciary.