Opinion ID: 2018392
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exclusivity of section 17A.19.

Text: The fighting issue is whether our Salsbury Laboratories decision controls here. We there stated: There is no basis on which to conclude the exclusive means language in section 17A.19 is mitigated by an exception for common-law writs such as certiorari, declaratory judgment, or injunction. A person or party aggrieved or adversely affected by agency action must utilize the provisions of section 17A.19 in seeking judicial review of that action. Id. at 835 (emphasis added). Although Iowa Beef, in defending district court's actions, questions the applicability of chapter 17A, the provisions of the IAPA clearly apply to this appeal. See § 86.26, The Code (Judicial review of decisions or orders of the industrial commissioner may be sought in accordance with the terms of chapter 17A.). Iowa Beef also attempts to distinguish Salsbury Laboratories as involving an executive order rather than a judicial ruling. It relies upon our statement in Buechele v. Ray, 219 N.W.2d 679, 681 (Iowa 1974), that certiorari will lie if the act in question is quasi-judicial in nature. However, Buechele was a pre-IAPA decision. The IAPA specifically provides that this chapter shall take precedence over other existing statutes. § 17A.23, The Code. Chapter 17A provisions ordinarily prevail over the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure governing common-law writs such as certiorari. Salsbury Laboratories, 276 N.W.2d at 835. Iowa Beef also finds support in Warren County v. Judges of Fifth Judicial District, 243 N.W.2d 894, 900 (Iowa 1976), where we stated, Acts of judicial officers may be reviewed in a number of ways, including . . . certiorari . . . . Although the distinction between judicial officers and administrative officers for purposes of reviewing their actions was reiterated in Salsbury Laboratories, 276 N.W.2d at 833, Iowa Beef's reliance is misplaced. Warren County involved magistrates who were not administrative officers within the coverage of the IAPA. § 17A.2(1), The Code. Decisions of the Commissioner and his deputies, on the other hand, are agency actions subject to review exclusively under chapter 17A even though those administrative officers may be performing a quasi-judicial function. Salsbury Laboratories, 276 N.W.2d at 835; § 86.26, The Code. In a final effort to escape the Salsbury Laboratories ruling, Iowa Beef asserts a writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy rooted in the Iowa Constitution and thus is not a statutory remedy which may be withheld by the legislature. The constitution provides in relevant part: The Supreme Court . . . shall have power to issue all writs and process necessary to secure justice to parties, and shall exercise a supervisory and administrative control over all inferior Judicial tribunals throughout the State. Iowa Const. art. V, § 4, (1857) as amended by Iowa Const. amend. 21, § 1 (1962). Iowa Beef contends that the legislature, in adopting the exclusive means language of section 17A.19, unconstitutionally restricted this court's power to issue writs, including certiorari. It is, of course, a well-established principle that every statute is presumed to be constitutionally valid. Millsap v. Cedar Rapids Civil Service Commission, 249 N.W.2d 679, 684 (Iowa 1977). See also Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct v. Behnke, 276 N.W.2d 838, 843 (Iowa), appeal dismissed, ___ U.S. ___, 100 S.Ct. 27, 62 L.Ed.2d 19 (1979). Courts will not interfere when constitutionality is only doubtful or debatable. Board of Supervisors v. Department of Revenue, 263 N.W.2d 227, 235 (Iowa 1978). It is our duty to give construction to an act, if possible, which upholds the law and avoids a declaration of unconstitutionality. Long v. Board of Supervisors, 258 Iowa 1278, 1283, 142 N.W.2d 378, 381 (1966). Iowa Beef's argument does not address the fact that the IAPA does not infringe this court's constitutionally protected powers. Iowa Const. art. V, § 4, first protects the distinct power of this court to issue a writ of certiorari, a power incorporated in Iowa R.App.P. 301-04 and utilized by the Commissioner to bring this appeal. This power is not at issue here. The constitutional provision also protects this court's power to exercise a supervisory and administrative control over other judicial tribunals, a power exercised in part by adoption of the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure. This concept finds expression in section 684.18(1), The Code, which provides in relevant part: The supreme court shall have the power to prescribe all rules of pleading, practice and procedure, and the forms of process, writs and notices, for all proceedings of a civil nature in all courts of this state, for the purpose of . . . promoting the speedy determination of litigation upon its merits. (Emphasis added.) The power is exercised under section 684.19 procedures, and thereafter all laws in conflict therewith shall be of no further force or effect. Again, this court's constitutionally protected powers have not been restricted: The prior right to adopt, amend or repeal rules of civil procedure (including Iowa R.Civ.P. 306-19 governing writs of certiorari issued by lower courts) was not affected, nor constitutional protections abridged, by enactment of the IAPA. Nor were this court's constitutional powers to issue all writs and process necessary to secure justice to parties  affected by enactment of the IAPA. Chapter 17A provides an alternative remedy for obtaining judicial review and securing justice to parties. It follows Iowa Beef's constitutional argument does not require us to retreat from our Salsbury Laboratories holding. Because under this record chapter 17A.19 provides the exclusive means of challenging agency action, district court's granting of Iowa Beef's Petition for Writ of Certiorari did not conform to our law.