Opinion ID: 3046880
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: E vents leading up to the G eneral

Text: A ssem bly’s enactm ent of A ct 44 The Pennsylvania C onstitution provides that [t]he judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a unified judicial system consisting of the Supreme Court, the Superior Court, the Comm onw ealth Court, courts of common pleas, community courts, municipal and traffic courts in the City of Philadelphia, such other courts as may be provided by law and justices of the peace. All courts and justices of the peace and their jurisdiction shall be in this unified judicial system. Pa. Const., art. V, § 1. Based upon this constitutional provision, Allegheny C ounty, in 1985, sued the Commonw ealth, arguing that, contrary to the relevant Pennsylvania statutes enacted by the General Assembly, the Pennsylvania Constitution required the Commonwealth, rather than the County, to fund the County’s Court of Common Pleas. See County of Allegheny v. Commonwealth, 534 A.2d 760, 761, 763 (Pa. 1987). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed, holding 6 “that the statutory scheme for county funding of the judicial system is in conflict w ith the intent clearly expressed in the constitution that the judicial system be unified.” Id. at 765. N evertheless, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court provided that, because this order entails that present statutory funding for the judicial system is now void as offending the constitutional mandate for a unified system, we stay our judgment to afford the General A ssembly an opportunity to enact appropriate funding legislation consistent with this holding. Until this is done, the prior system of county funding shall remain in place. Id. (footnotes omitted). Notwithstanding this mandate from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, however, the General Assembly declined to act to fund the courts. See Pa. State Ass’n of County C om m ’rs v. Commonwealth, 681 A.2d 699, 700-01 (Pa. 1996). After nine years of inaction, the Pennsylvania Association of County Commissioners sought mandamus relief from the Pennsylvania Supreme C ourt, asking the Court to direct the G eneral Assembly to fund the state’s unified court system. See id. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus: “Pursuant to this w rit, jurisdiction is retained and by further order a master w ill be appointed to recommend to this court a schema which will form the basis for the specific implementation to be ordered.” Id. at 703. 7 At about this same time, the General Assembly, contrary to the Pennsylvania Constitution, was generally enacting legislation “in ways that precluded involvement in the legislative process by both the public and the vast majority of legislators.” App. at 43. Common C ause, as well as other parties, sued Pennsylvania in state court, challenging the validity of these various legislative enactments. In 1998 and 1999, the General Assembly negotiated with the Pennsylvania courts over the Commonwealth’s funding the court system. Those negotiations resulted in the General Assembly enacting legislation to fund the Commonwealth’s unified judicial system in return for the P en nsylvan ia S up rem e C ourt’s judicial de cisions upholding the legislation being challenged in state court.