Opinion ID: 2397396
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Other Claims Based Upon the Separation of Powers

Text: The plaintiff's final claim is that, even if the governor is not categorically immune from compelled testimony before a legislative impeachment committee, the subpoena issued by the defendant violates the separation of powers doctrine under the particular circumstances of this case because: (1) the subpoena was not issued as an investigative tool of last resort; and (2) the defendant has not provided the governor with adequate notice of the scope of its inquiry, the standard for impeachment or the burden of proof against which it will measure the evidence. [30] We reject these contentions. We turn first to the plaintiff's claim that the subpoena violates the separation of powers doctrine because the defendant has not demonstrated that the issuance of the subpoena was an absolute necessity. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that, by issuing the subpoena at an early stage of its investigation, the defendant has demonstrate[d] an utter lack of regard for the deference and respect due a coordinate branch of government. The plaintiff contends that a legislative subpoena of a sitting governor comports with the separation of powers doctrine, if at all, only if it complies with the following four conditions: (1) it is issued as a last resort; (2) the most compelling demonstration ha[s] been made that specific information [is] required; (3) such information [is] absolutely indispensable to the legislature's work; and (4) all other efforts to obtain [the] information through less disruptive means [have] failed. The plaintiff further contends that the defendant not only has failed to comply with that stringent standard, but rather has pursued exactly the opposite course: [it] has summoned the [g]overnor to testify as its first public witness; it has resorted to that drastic step at what isaccording to one of [its] cochairs`the earliest phases of [its] inquiry'; [and] it has done so in the absence of any public proof of impeachable conduct... [or] any showing that the information it seeks is essential to its investigation; and it has not demonstrated that such information is unavailable from any other source. We reject the plaintiff's primary contention essentially for the reasons that we already have rejected the plaintiff's claim of categorical immunity from compliance with the subpoena issued by the defendant. See part II A of this opinion. As we have explained, the defendant's ability to obtain evidence from the governor is in furtherance of the separation of powers principle, not in derogation of it, because the impeachment authority of the legislature is the ultimate constitutional check on the abuse of executive authoritya check necessary to preserve the delicate balance of powers that represents the core principle underlying the separation of powers doctrine. Moreover, the defendant's investigative, fact-finding and recommending responsibilities are unusually important under our constitutional impeachment provisions in view of the fact that, if the House of Representatives accepts an impeachment recommendation by the defendant, the power of the executive is transferred immediately from the governor to the lieutenant governor pending the governor's impeachment trial in the Senate. In light of the defendant's significant role in the impeachment process, its need to obtain as much relevant and reliable evidence as possible is essential if it is to discharge effectively its duties and ultimately make an informed recommendation to the House. Almost always, if not invariably, the governor, whose conduct is the subject of the defendant's inquiry, will be an invaluable source of information; indeed, he may be the only repository of firsthand information regarding critical aspects of the defendant's investigation. Given these compelling considerations, we perceive no legitimate reason why the separation of powers provision mandates that the defendant be required to put off any attempt to obtain the governor's testimony until it can demonstrate that it has exhausted all other possible avenues of investigation. On the contrary, the critical role that the defendant plays in our constitutional impeachment scheme militates in the opposite direction. [31] We next turn to the plaintiff's claim that the subpoena violates the separation of powers provision because the defendant has neither provided the governor with adequate notice of the scope of its inquiry nor articulated the standard for impeachment and the relevant burden of proof against which it will measure the evidence. In this regard, the plaintiff contends that, [a]s a result of the [defendant's] refusal to provide advance notice of the matters on which he would testify, the [g]overnor, if compelled to appear, would be forced essentially to guess about the subject of the [defendant's] questioning and would have no choice but to review a decade's worth of potentially relevant information every credit card receipt, every deposit slip, every contract awarded by the state [and] every piece of correspondence related to such contracts. The plaintiff further contends that [w]ithout articulation of the standard of conduct and burden of proof, the time and effort of preparing for compelled testimony `would seriously cripple the proper and effective administration of public affairs as entrusted to the executive branch.' We also reject these arguments for the same reasons that we have rejected them in the context of the plaintiff's categorical immunity claim. As the United States Supreme Court observed in Clinton v. Jones, supra, 520 U.S. at 702-703, 117 S.Ct. 1636: [The] petitioner errs by presuming that interactions between the [j]udicial [b]ranch and the [e]xecutive, even quite burdensome interactions, necessarily rise to the level of constitutionally forbidden impairment of the [e]xecutive's ability to perform its constitutionally mandated functions.... As Madison explained, separation of powers does not mean that the branches `ought to have no partial agency in, or no control over the acts of each other.' The fact that a federal court's exercise of its traditional [a]rticle III jurisdiction may significantly burden the time and attention of the [c]hief [e]xecutive is not sufficient to establish a violation of the [c]onstitution. (Citations omitted.) Similarly, although there is nothing about the subpoena in the present case that strikes us as particularly burdensome, the fact that the legislature's exercise of its core constitutional power to impeach may impose certain burdens on the time and attention of the governor simply is insufficient to establish a violation of the separation of powers. [32] Moreover, the specific concerns expressed by the plaintiff are exaggerated. At the time of oral argument before this court in the present case, many, if not most, of the other witnesses called by the defendant in connection with its inquiry already had testified publicly, [33] and the plaintiff had been provided with copies of the documents in the defendant's possession relevant to the testimony of those witnesses. That testimony and materials revealed the scope and nature of the inquiry in considerable detail. Furthermore, we think that the plaintiff's estimate of the time and effort required of the governor to prepare for testimony before the defendant simply is unrealistic. Given what the public record already has disclosed about the scope and nature of the defendant's inquiry at this late stage of the proceedings, we fail to see how the governor's obligation to respond truthfully to questions regarding his conduct would require him to undertake the mammoth task described by the plaintiff. The judgment is affirmed. SULLIVAN, C.J., dissenting. I agree with Justice Zarella's mootness analysis, in which he concludes that the sole issue before this court is the validity of a legislative subpoena to the governor enforceable only by the threat of impeachment. I also agree that that issue is non-justiciable and, accordingly, that the complaint of the plaintiff, the office of the governor of Connecticut, should be dismissed. I write separately to emphasize certain points. The majority states that if the governor were required to wait until an article of impeachment was issued against him, and the governor challenged that issuance in court, then the court would be required to evaluate a discretionary function of the House, namely, the substantive grounds on which the article of impeachment was based. Such a scenario undoubtedly would pose issues of nonjusticiability. [1] Thus, the majority recognizes that the grounds for impeachment are committed solely to the legislature. Moreover, the majority recognizes that whether the subpoena is enforceable by traditional means is not before it. The majority nevertheless concludes that it has jurisdiction to consider whether the governor is categorically immune from the legal obligation to testify. I disagree. The defendant, the select committee of inquiry to recommend whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to impeach Governor John G. Rowland pursuant to article ninth of the state constitution, cites several cases for the proposition that the chief executive is not immune from the legal obligation to respond to a legislative subpoena if the information sought outweighs any competing interest in executive independence or confidentiality. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 707-708, 117 S.Ct. 1636, 137 L.Ed.2d 945 (1997) (president's deposition testimony required to avoid prejudice to plaintiff that might result from delaying trial of civil claim against president); United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 687, 712-13, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974) (when special prosecutor sought information from president in connection with ongoing criminal case against seven named individuals, fundamental demands of due process of law in fair administration of criminal justice outweighed president's generalized interest in confidentiality); Nixon v. Sirica, 487 F.2d 700, 716-17 (D.C.Cir.1973) (grand jury's need for information in criminal case outweighed president's interest in confidentiality); United States v. Virgin Islands, No.1984-104, 2001 WL 1249674,  (D.Virgin Islands, October 17, 2001) (court could order governor to testify on matter of extreme importance to the public safety and well-being when governor voluntarily placed himself under power of court by agreeing to terms of consent decree); United States v. Poindexter, 732 F.Supp. 142, 154-55 (D.D.C.1990) (criminal defendant could subpoena former president's deposition testimony when required for fair trial); Halperin v. Kissinger, 401 F.Supp. 272, 275 (D.D.C.1975) (plaintiff's need for former president's testimony in civil case outweighed president's interest in confidentiality when president was uniquely capable of clarifying certain ... issues); see also United States v. Burr, 25 F.Cas. 187, 192 (C.C.D.Va.1807) (in criminal case, court must weigh president's claim of confidentiality against defendant's need for information sought); United States v. Burr, 25 F.Cas. 30, 34-35 (C.C.D.Va.1807) (granting motion for subpoena to president in criminal case); see also Thompson v. German Valley R. Co., 22 N.J.Eq. 111, 114-15 (1871) (governor bound to appear and testify in response to subpoena in civil case but court would not order him to do so or hold him in contempt if he refused; sole remedy was action for damages by party injured by governor's refusal to testify). [2] I am in full accord with the spirit of these cases holding that, under our system of law, not even the highest government official may deny with impunity a demand for information from another branch of government when that information is required to protect or adjudicate the rights of a third person. That principle does not apply in the present case, however. More fundamentally, in each of these cases, there existed a remedy for the chief executive's refusal to comply with the subpoena. Even if it is assumed that the chief executive could not have been subject to a capias or to contempt proceedings while in office, [3] an issue that none of these cases directly addressed, it is possible that he could have been subject to such proceedings after leaving office. Moreover, it is possible that, if a court determined that the production of information by a chief executive was essential to the fair adjudication of a third person's rights in a civil or criminal proceeding, and the chief executive nevertheless refused to produce the information, the court could dismiss the underlying proceeding, a potential collateral consequence that could also save the issue from being moot. In addition, it is possible that a chief executive who failed to comply with a valid subpoena could be subject to an action for damages. See Thompson v. German Valley R. Co., supra, at 115. In other words, in each case, practical relief was available upon a judicial determination that the subpoena was valid. In contrast, in the present case, the majority's determination that the governor is obligated to testify has no attendant practical consequences. [4] The defendant indicated that it would not issue a capias or institute contempt proceedings against the governor and the legislature could issue an article of impeachment for his failure to testify regardless of this court's opinion as to his legal obligation to do so. As the majority itself recognizes, when the court is precluded from granting practical relief, the case is moot. See Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. Rocque, 267 Conn. 116, 125-26, 836 A.2d 414 (2003). The majority states that, [s]imply because the court would not be justified in substantively reviewing an article of impeachment based on [the governor's] failure to comply does not mean ... that we also must deprive both the plaintiff and, indirectly, the people who elected the governor, from mounting a colorable constitutional challenge that is rendered viable because of the threat of such an article. The majority also states repeatedly that the question that it is deciding is whether the governor is categorically immune from compliance with the subpoena, not whether the governor may be compelled to testify. In my view, however, the plaintiff's constitutional challenge is not rendered viable by the existence of a potential practical consequence that this court's opinion cannot affect one way or the other. The majority has provided no authority for the proposition that the governor, or the people of this state, are entitled to a purely advisory opinion from this court because the plaintiff raises a matter of great public interest. The strangeness of the phrase immune from compliance further highlights the basic flaw in the majority's analysis. As a general matter, the notion of immunity implies some sort of protection from or invulnerability to the threat of sanctions or enforcement by a third party. Presumably, the governor would always be free to comply voluntarily with a legislative request for information. The question before the court is whether he must comply even if he would prefer not to. The answer to that question depends on whether there is a remedy for his failure to complyin other words, whether the legislature has some means of compulsion. Indeed, as a purely linguistic matter, it is difficult to understand what the phrase immune from compliance could mean except immune from compulsion. As the majority concedes, the only means of compulsion available to the defendant in the present case is the threat of recommending an article of impeachment. As the majority also implicitly concedes, this court has no power either to authorize the defendant to carry out that threat or to enjoin it from doing so. It is clear, therefore, that the plaintiff's claim is moot. Accordingly, I dissent. ZARELLA, J., with whom SULLIVAN, C.J., joins, dissenting. When the constitution clearly commits a function to the legislative branch, [w]e must resist the temptation ... to enhance our own constitutional authority by trespassing upon an area clearly reserved as the prerogative of a coordinate branch of government. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Nielsen v. State, 236 Conn. 1, 10, 670 A.2d 1288 (1996). Because I believe that the majority has succumbed to that temptation in the present case, I dissent. The majority today eviscerates the political question doctrine, which has, in the past, effectively protected both the executive and legislative branches from unwarranted interference by the judiciary. [1] This court repeatedly has recognized that, [a]lthough it is widely assumed that the judiciary, as ultimate arbiter of the meaning of constitutional provisions, must determine every constitutional claim presented and provide appropriate relief, some constitutional commands fall outside the conditions and purposes that circumscribe judicial action. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 8-9, 670 A.2d 1288. We also have recognized that when a plaintiff has raised a claim that inextricably presents a political question not amenable to judicial resolution and ... seeks relief that a court cannot provide without an impermissible intrusion upon the prerogatives and functions of the coordinate branches of government, the claim is non-justiciable. Id., at 9, 670 A.2d 1288. I begin by addressing the mootness issue. As the majority recognizes, because the defendant committee has represented that it would not seek to enforce the subpoena through contempt proceedings or a capias, the only consequence to the governor of his refusal to comply with the subpoena would be impeachment on that ground. The majority concludes that the governor's appeal is not moot only because of that potential collateral consequence. Thus, the sole issue before the court is whether the defendant constitutionally may issue a subpoena to the governor when the subpoena is enforceable only by the threat of impeachment. Whether the legislature constitutionally may arrest the governor if he refuses to comply with the subpoena and compel his attendance before the defendant, and whether the courts may enforce the subpoena in contempt proceedings, are not at issue. In my view, the mere issuance of the subpoena does not constitute a harm to the governor sufficient to invoke judicial review, [2] and the threat of impeachment if the governor refuses to comply does not permit the courts to intervene because it involves a political question that is purely within the legislative sphere. Chief Justice Marshall proclaimed two centuries ago [that] ... `[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.' Marbury v. Madison, [5 U.S. (1 Cranch)] 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). Sometimes, however, the law is that the judicial department has no business entertaining the claim of unlawfulnessbecause the question is entrusted to one of the political branches or involves no judicially enforceable rights.... Such questions are said to be `nonjusticiable,' or `political questions.' (Citations omitted.) Vieth v. Jubelirer, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 124 S.Ct. 1769, 1776, 158 L.Ed.2d 546 (2004) (plurality opinion). In Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), the United States Supreme Court held that a question is nonjusticiable when there exists a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question. Id., at 217, 82 S.Ct. 691. Applying this standard, the majority concludes that this case does not present a nonjusticiable political question because this court held in Kinsella v. Jaekle, 192 Conn. 704, 721, 475 A.2d 243 (1984), that, although impeachment is a legislative function, judicial intervention in impeachment related proceedings is permitted in certain limited circumstances. See footnote 22 of the majority opinion. I disagree with the majority's characterization of the holding in Kinsella. In Kinsella, this court held that the legislature had exclusive jurisdiction over an investigation to consider the institution of impeachment proceedings against the plaintiff, an elected probate judge, and that the trial court, therefore, should have dismissed the plaintiff's complaint, in which the plaintiff alleged that the impeachment investigation procedures adopted by the legislature were unconstitutional. Kinsella v. Jaekle, supra, at 731, 475 A.2d 243. This court did state in dictum, however, that, in carrying out its impeachment duties, the legislature could not ignore individual rights with impunity; id., at 727, 475 A.2d 243; and that, if the legislature committed acts that constituted egregious and otherwise irreparable violations of constitutional guarantees, such acts would be subject to judicial review. Id., at 726, 475 A.2d 243. I agree that this court has jurisdiction to adjudicate individual rights. If the legislature were, for example, to imprison the subject of impeachment proceedings for his refusal to testify, I believe that this court would have jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to that act. To the extent that we suggested in Kinsella that there may be circumstances under which this court would have jurisdiction to determine the legality of an impeachment itself, [3] however, I disagree. I also believe that that is the only question implicated by the governor's claim in the present case. Accordingly, I would conclude that the case presents a nonjusticiable political question. In Kinsella, this court recognized that the Connecticut constitution adopted by the constitutional convention in 1818 unequivocally commits the power of impeachment and removal from elected office to the General Assembly. Id., at 713, 475 A.2d 243; see Conn. Const., art. IX, §§ 1 and 2. [4] We also noted that [t]he records of the constitutional convention of 1818 do not explain the framers' reasons for doing so. Kinsella v. Jaekle, supra, 192 Conn. at 717, 475 A.2d 243. Consequently, we looked to the impeachment and removal power's history and ... the words of the framers of the United States constitution to inform our understanding of our state constitution's impeachment provisions. Id., at 717-18, 475 A.2d 243. This history instructs us that the impeachment power is quintessentially political. As one scholar has stated, [f]ederalists viewed impeachments as inherently political in nature and hence committed to the complete discretion of the most political branch, the legislature. R. Pushaw, Justiciability and Separation of Powers: A Neo-Federalist Approach, 81 Cornell L. Rev. 393, 429 n. 166 (1996). In support of this statement, Professor Pushaw cites Alexander Hamilton's view that impeachments should be left to the Congress because they may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. [5] The Federalist No. 65, p. 396 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961); see also 1 L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law (3d Ed. 2000) § 2-7, pp. 152-53 (constitutional language delegating to Congress sole power over impeachment proceedings and role of impeachment as ultimate legislative check on the other two branches [of government] have removed impeachment process from judicial review); R. Pushaw, supra, 81 Cornell L. Rev. 429 n. 166, citing 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) §§ 744 through 745, 748, 762 through 764, 783, 795, 798, 801, pp. 217-19, 220-21, 233-37, 252-53, 264-65, 268-69, 271-72, [6] 1 The Works of James Wilson (R. McCloskey ed., 1967) pp. 324, 399, and M. Gerhardt, Rediscovering Nonjusticiablity: Judicial Review of Impeachments After Nixon,  44 Duke L.J. 231, 255-57 (1994). In Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224, 233, 113 S.Ct. 732, 122 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993), the United States Supreme Court noted that the framers had considered multiple proposals to delegate the impeachment power to the federal judiciary, but ultimately rejected those proposals and delegated the power solely to Congress. The court identified several reasons that the framers had done so. First, the framers believed that the Senate was the `most fit depositary of the important trust' [i.e., the sole power to try impeachments] because its Members are representatives of the people. Id., quoting The Federalist No. 65 (Alexander Hamilton). [7] Second, the framers believed that the Senate was a more appropriate body than the judiciary to try impeachments because they `doubted whether the members of that tribunal would, at all times, be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task' or whether the [Supreme] Court `would possess the degree of credit and authority' to carry out its judgment if it conflicted with the accusation brought by the Legislaturethe people's representative. Nixon v. United States, supra, at 233-34, 113 S.Ct. 732, quoting The Federalist No. 65. Third, the framers believed that the Supreme Court was too small a body to conduct an impeachment. Nixon v. United States, supra, at 234, 113 S.Ct. 732. `The awful discretion, which a court of impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honor or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community, forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons.' Id., quoting The Federalist No. 65. Fourth, the framers recognized that misconduct that results in impeachment also would likely result in a criminal proceeding, and, if the court presided over the impeachment proceeding, it potentially could be biased in the criminal proceeding. [8] Nixon v. United States, supra, at 234, 113 S.Ct. 732. In light of this history, the court in Nixon deemed nonjusticiable the claim of the petitioner, a former United States District Court judge, that a rule adopted by the United States Senate, which allowed a committee of senators to receive evidence offered against an individual who has been impeached and to report that evidence to the full Senate, violated the impeachment trial clause of the federal constitution. Id., at 227, 238, 113 S.Ct. 732; see U.S. Const., art. I, § 3, cl. 6. As Professor Pushaw notes, this is one of the very few questions that the United States Supreme Court has deemed to be purely political. R. Pushaw, supra, 81 Cornell L. Rev. 499; see also Vieth v. Jubelirer, supra, 124 S.Ct. at 1778 (plurality opinion) (political gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable); Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 7, 93 S.Ct. 2440, 37 L.Ed.2d 407 (1973) (constitution leaves military training and procedures entirely to legislative and executive branches); Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 149, 32 S.Ct. 224, 56 L.Ed. 377 (1912) (claims arising under guaranty clause of article IV, § 4, of United States constitution are nonjusticiable); cf. Schieffelin & Co. v. Dept. of Liquor Control, 194 Conn. 165, 185, 479 A.2d 1191 (1984) (only remedy for violation of procedural rules of state Senate is political); State v. Sitka, 11 Conn.App. 342, 346-47, 527 A.2d 265 (1987) (claim that state Senate violated its own procedures does not present state constitutional question subject to judicial review). It was in recognition of the essentially political nature of impeachment that the judiciary committee of the United States House of Representatives concluded, during its investigation of alleged wrongdoings by President Richard M. Nixon, that impeachment was the sole remedy for the president's refusal to comply with certain subpoenas; see Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, H.R.Rep. No. 93-1305 (1974) p. 4 (H.R.Rep. No. 93-1305); and that it would be inappropriate to seek the aid of the courts to enforce its subpoenas against the President. Id., p. 210. The committee's analysis of this issue is worth quoting at length. The impeachment power is explicitly vested in the House of Representatives by the Constitution; its use necessarily involves the exercise of discretion by the House. While it is true that the courts may on occasion act as an umpire between Congress and the President, there are also many issues where the courts will decline to intervene because the question is one that has been constitutionally submitted to another branch.