Opinion ID: 1177991
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the basis of the injunction

Text: Judge Fogerty's opinion, dated February 17, 1982, reads in part as follows: A Court clearly cannot function without a library or equipment. Nor should the Court be in a position where it must solicit and accept donations, whether public or private. [¶] The concept of a tripartite government with its doctrine of separation of powers has been violated by this legislative enactment [chapter 959]. The independence of the judiciary is sacrosanct.... [Citation.] [¶] The legislature, through its enactment, has impinged upon the efficient operation of the court, and has thereby violated Article 3, Section 3 of the California Constitution. Furthermore, a statute which requires a state court to finance its necessary operations from donations threatens the integrity of the judicial process and the reputation for impartiality which is indispensible to the judicial functions. [¶] Finally, this Court concludes that the unconstitutional funding provisions cannot be severed from the statute as a whole.... It would ... be beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to attempt to rewrite the statute to determine which of the new divisions would stand or fall. Nor can this Court merely strike the limitation thereby requiring the State to fund a program where an insufficient budget has been allocated. [¶] ... [T]his Court can review and act only on what is before it. The fact that in the future the legislature may be able to rewrite the statute to then make it constitutional is not a factor to be considered by this Court. On June 30 this year, perhaps in response to Judge Fogerty's concerns, the Legislature included the following provision in its 1982 Budget Act (Stats. 1982, ch. 326, item 0250-490, provision 2): Notwithstanding Section 6 of Chapter 959 [see fn. 1, ante ]... $209,480 ... is expressly allocated to fund the library and equipment for Division Three of the Fourth Appellate District (the division holding sessions in Orange County). [2] That is to say, no longer was there any intent that financing of that library and equipment  be achieved by local funding or public or private donation. ... Thus it appears that the Fogerty injunction, challenged here, reflected the judge's concerns regarding a statutory restriction that no longer exists. Deemed temporary when enacted (see fn. 1, ante ), that restriction in toto was superseded by the 1982 Budget Act. So we need not consider whether he correctly concluded that in 1981, because of its section 6, the Legislature passed a statute which violated the California Constitution.... He stressed, though, that his ruling was dispositive without regard to other significant problems raised in this litigation. Therefore we proceed to examine those problems, as they have been identified and discussed in the briefs of the parties and amici and during oral argument.