Opinion ID: 1833576
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Separation of powers. The separation-of-powers principle is embodied in article III, section 1 of the Iowa Constitution:

Text: The powers of the government of Iowa shall be divided into three separate departmentsthe legislative, the executive, and the judicialand no person charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any function appertaining to either of the others, except in cases hereinafter expressly directed or permitted. Early on, this court held that a statute which imposed a duty on the district court to appoint waterworks trustees violated this constitutional provision. State ex rel. White v. Barker, 116 Iowa 96, 111-13, 89 N.W. 204, 208-09 (1902). The court explained the rationale underlying the separation-of-powers principle: The division of the powers of government into three different departments legislative, executive, and judiciallies at the very foundation of our constitutional system. The fathers had in mind Montesquieu's Dissertation on the Spirit of the Laws, in which he said: There is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers. When the legislative and executive powers are united in one body or person, there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws to execute them in a tyrannical manner. He further said: Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator. Were it joined to the executive, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor. Recognizing the dangers to be feared from concentration of power, our constitution builders not only created the three departments, but especially provided in section 1, article 3, that no person charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any function appertaining to either of the others, except in cases hereinafter expressly directed and permitted. Id. at 108, 89 N.W. at 208. In Barker, the court went on to adopt a well-recognized separation-of-powers principle involving constitutional courts like the district court: [P]owers not in themselves judicial, and that are not to be exercised in the discharge of the functions of the judicial department, cannot be conferred on courts or judges designated by the constitution as a part of the judicial department of the state. Id. at 109, 89 N.W. at 208. But, as the court explained, there is some flexibility: Of course, the act itself need not be judicial in character. If the general power be judicial, or if the act itself be in aid of some judicial function, it is sufficient. Thus the exercise of judicial power may be essential in the discharge of executive functions. And courts, in the discharge of their duties, may be required to exercise executive or administrative powers. They may be authorized to make contracts to keep court rooms in repair; may appoint commissioners to apportion and assess damages for the opening of a highway; may appoint jury commissioners; may determine whether a municipal corporation shall be created, or adjoining territory annexed. But in each and all of these cases the powers are either judicial in character, or are to be exercised in the discharge of functions pertaining to the judicial department. If the matter is one requiring some judicial determination, it may be left to the court, or to judges, although it is not involved in the determination of an actual case litigated in the ordinary manner. Thus, the propriety and necessity of the construction of a bridge over railway tracks may be left to a judge for a decision. Courts cannot fix railroad, telegraph, telephone, water, and other rates, although they pass on the reasonableness thereof. Fixing rates in such instances is purely a legislative act, which cannot be delegated to a constitutional court. Id. at 110-11, 89 N.W. at 209 (citations omitted). Applying these principles, the Barker court had little trouble concluding that the statute in question violated the constitutional provision regarding separation of powers. Id. at 111-12, 89 N.W. at 209. As the court explained: The appointment of trustees to manage and control a system of waterworks belonging to a municipal corporation in advance of litigation or of any dispute concerning their management or control is surely not a judicial function. It is more nearly administrative; but with the affairs of the corporation and the management of its property courts have nothing to do in advance of some dispute. If courts are to select city officials, they may also select those who are to administer the affairs of the county; and it is not going too far to say that they may also be authorized to select state officials. Such a union of power would ... result in tyranny. That which distinguishes a judicial function from a legislative act is that the one is a determination of what an existing law is in relation to some existing thing already done or happened, while the other is a predetermination of what the law shall be for the regulation of future cases falling under its provisions. ... The appointments authorized by the act in question are in no manner connected with the discharge of judicial duties, and to our minds clearly fall within the prohibition of [the Iowa constitutional provision regarding separation of powers.] Id. at 111-12, 89 N.W. at 209 (citations omitted); see also 16 Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 356, at 901 (1979) (The legislature cannot delegate or confer legislative power on the courts or impose legislative duties upon them, because such duties are not judicial in nature. An act of the legislature delegating legislative powers to courts is unconstitutional.). As mentioned, Iowa Code section 232.143 mandates several things. First, the general assemblyon an annual basisis to set [a] statewide target for the average number of children in group foster care placements on any day of a fiscal year. Iowa Code § 232.143(1). Second, the department and the juvenile court shall establish a plan for containing the number of children placed in foster care ordered by the court within the target allocated to that region pursuant to subsection 1. The plan shall include monthly targets and strategies for developing alternatives to group foster care placement in order to contain expenditures for services provided to children within the amount appropriated by the general assembly for that purpose. Iowa Code § 232.143(2) (emphasis added). Last, [t]o the extent possible, the department and the juvenile court shall coordinate the planning required under this subsection with planning for services paid under section 232.141, subsection 4. Id. (emphasis added). Clearly, the juvenile court's mandates under these provisions to accomplish the legislature's goal of cost containment for group foster care placements are not judicial functions. Nor are the mandates in aid of some judicial function. Rather, the mandates are nothing more than the legislators' way of abdicating the responsibility for policy and funding decisions they were elected to make. These mandates clearly contemplate discouraging group foster care placements in favor of alternate treatment options as a way of containing costs of foster care placements. We have recognized that such policy and funding decisions are essentially a legislative function. In re C.S., 516 N.W.2d 851, 858 (Iowa 1994); see also Rush v. Ray, 362 N.W.2d 479, 483 (Iowa 1985) (holding that power to appropriate funds and restrict their use is legislative function); Graham v. Worthington, 259 Iowa 845, 857, 146 N.W.2d 626, 635 (1966) (holding that legislature governs expenditure of state funds). In short, imposing these mandates on the juvenile court clearly violates the separation-of-powers principle found in article III, section 1 of the Iowa Constitution. For that reason, the mandates as they pertain to the juvenile court have no force and effect. B. Unlawful delegation of legislative authority. The mandates are also an unlawful delegation of legislative authority to the juvenile court, and to the Iowa Department of Human Services for that matter. As we noted in In re C.S., [l]egislative power is the power to make, alter, and repeal laws and to formulate legislative policy. Executive power is the power to put the laws enacted by the legislature into effect. Based on this division, legislative delegations of power to an executive body have historically required a clear delineation of legislative policy and substantive standards to guide the agency in its implementation of that policy. The more modern view adopted by our court is that precise substantive guidelines or standards are not required in the legislation if adequate procedural safeguards are provided. The procedural safeguards must advance the legislature's purpose and must preclude arbitrary, capricious, or illegal conduct by the agency. In re C.S., 516 N.W.2d at 859 (citations omitted). Judicial power is the power to interpret the constitution and laws, and apply them, and decide controversies. City of Cedar Falls v. Flett, 330 N.W.2d 251, 255 (Iowa 1983). The principles regarding substantive guidelines and procedural safeguards pertaining to a legislative delegation of authority to an executive body apply with equal force to a legislative delegation of authority to the judicial branch. Warren County v. Judges of Fifth Judicial Dist., 243 N.W.2d 894, 898 (Iowa 1976) (We believe principles developed for testing the constitutionality of a delegation of legislative power to the executive branch may be applied in testing a delegation to the judicial branch.). In In re C.S., we had before us a statute similar in purpose to Iowa Code section 232.143. In fact, the statute in In re C.S.  Iowa Code section 232.187(1)was passed at the same time as section 232.143. Section 232.187 mandated that the department and the judicial department establish regional out-of-state placement committees. The statute expressed a legislative intent that the out-of-state committees reduce out-of-state group foster care placements by twenty-five percent during a specified period. In In re C.S., we held that section 232.187(1) provided no procedural safeguards to protect against an arbitrary decision. In re C.S., 516 N.W.2d at 859. For example, the statute did not (1) give the child or the child's parents the right to appear before the committee and (2) allow for review of the committee's decision. A committee's decision to recommend against an out-of-state placement under section 232.187 was final and binding on the juvenile court. Id. Neither procedural protectionthe right to appear before the committee and review of the committee's decisionis provided for under section 232.143. We likewise find that section 232.143 provides no procedural safeguards to protect against an arbitrary decision as to group foster care placement of a juvenile. Because section 232.187 provided no procedural safeguards, we next had to decide in In re C.S. whether section 232.187 provided the out-of-state committees with substantive standards to guide their deliberations. Id. We held that providing for (1) a twenty-five percent reduction in placements and (2) the consultation with experts were insufficient substantive guidelines for an out-of-state placement committee to determine which placements to approve and on what basis. Id. We concluded that lacking procedural safeguards and substantive guidelines, the delegation under section 232.187 to the out-of-state committees of the power to determine who is to receive the funding available for out-of-state placements is unlawful. Id. Substantive guidelines are similarly lacking under section 232.143. The only guidance is to develop a plan based on monthly number targets. The decision-makerin this case the Gateway Committeeitself is to devise such targets, providing even fewer known standards and guidelines. We note that the legislature for the fiscal year involved did not provide an overarching number to allocate among the regions. Instead, the legislature only provided a set dollar amount limit. In short, the legislature delegated the power to determine individual group foster care placement under section 232.143 without procedures or guidelines necessary to prevent arbitrary and capricious decisions about individual placements in group foster care. For that reason this delegation of power was unlawful. The juvenile court was correct in concluding that the absence of approval by the Gateway Committee was no impediment to its decision to place the juveniles in question in group foster care. Because there was money available to accommodate the placements here, the juvenile court was well within its discretion in ordering the placements.