Court Opinion

ID: 9855885
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:33:20.009398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:16.278356
License: Public Domain

SHUMAKER, Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in the majority’s decisions on all issues in these consolidated appeals except its determination that the administrative child support process established by Minn. *828Stat. § 518.5511, subd. 1 (1996), is unconstitutional. As to that holding, I respectfully dissent. In my view, the challengers have failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the process is unconstitutional. Upon a review of the relevant cases after Breimhorst v. Beckman, 227 Minn. 409, 35 N.W.2d 719 (1949), and similar legislative transfers of powers to administrative entities such as the workers’ compensation division, I conclude that section 518.5511 does not violate the separation of powers doctrine.
Any analysis must begin with an acknowledgment that Minn.Stat. § 518.5511 ‘is presumed to be constitutional. In re Blilie, 494 N.W.2d 877, 881 (Minn.1993). This presumption can be overcome only by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional. Id. This is the weightiest burden of proof in the Anglo-American system of law. Since we are dealing with a purely legal question, the challengers’ burden is to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no principled application of legal precedent that will sustain the statute. I believe that the challengers have failed to carry their burden and that when we subject the statute to the Breimhorst test, as that test is currently applied, the statute satisfies the separation of powers mandate.
Preliminarily, it will be helpful to explore the general concept of “separation of powers” and the legal principles inherent in the concept. The Minnesota Constitution mándates that the powers of the three branches of government be exercised separately. Minn. Const, art. Ill, § 1. The purpose of the separation is to provide “checks and balances critical to our notion of democracy.” Wulff v. Tax Court of Appeals, 288 N.W.2d 221, 223 (Minn.1979). The unfettered concentration of a particular power in one branch of government to the exclusion of the other branches is abhorrent to our democratic system, for, according to Locke and Montesquieu, “tyranny would be the natural and probable result.” Id. at 222-23.
Logically then, the powers of the three branches may be shared in some limited way, and one branch must have the ability to “check” the exercise of powers by the other branches. This “checking” requirement, formulated as the separation of powers doctrine, “has never been an absolute division of governmental functions in this country, nor was such even intended.” Id. at 223 (footnote omitted). Moreover, there has never been an all-inclusive definition of “judicial power”:
“What is judicial power cannot be brought within the ring-fence of a definition. It is undoubtedly power to hear and determine; but this is not peculiar to the judicial office. Many of the acts of administrative and executive' officers involve the exercise of the’ same power.” * * * [M]any boards hear and determine questions affecting private as well as public rights, * * *. “The authority to ascertain facts and apply the law to the facts when ascertained pertains as well to other departments of government as to the judiciary.”
Breimhorst, 227 Minn. at 432-33, 35 N.W.2d 719, 734 (1949), (quoting State ex rel. Yaple v. Creamer, 85 Ohio St. 349, 97 N.E. 602, 607 (1912)). “Courts have often validated the exercise of power by administrative agencies by characterizing it as ‘quasi-judicial.’ ” Wulff, 288 N.W.2d at 223.
Courts do not interpret and apply the separation of powers doctrine strictly. Id. Rather, they employ the “checking” approach, always inquiring as to whether the power under scrutiny is so exclusively concentrated in one branch that tyranny, at least as to that power, is a genuine risk. Id. at 222-23. Thus, courts have permitted
a delegation of powers to an agency so long as it was accompanied by adequate standards to act as a check on agency activity. By so limiting the powers of agencies, separation of powers is to some extent maintained.
Id. at 223. Wulff recognized that many administrative agencies exercise the powers of all three branches of government and acknowledged that “a strict interpretation of the separation of powers doctrine would make the existence and functioning of such agencies nearly impossible.” Id.
The majority relies on Breimhorst and Wulff in declaring Minn.Stat. § 518.5511 vio-lative of the separation of powers doctrine. Breimhorst held that the quasi-judicial functions of an administrative agency do not violate the separation of powers if (1) the agen*829cy’s decisions lack judicial finality because no judgment can be entered thereon without intervention by a “duly established court;” and (2) judicial appellate review is available. 227 Minn. at 433, 35 N.W.2d at 734. Wulff provided no new rule but only said: “We believe that the criteria set out in Breim-horst mark the outside limit of allowable quasi-judicial power in Minnesota.” Wulff, 288 N.W.2d at 223.
Although Breimhorst and Wulff are prece-dential authorities, I believe that the more recent decision in Mack v. City of Minneapolis, 333 N.W.2d 744, 753 (Minn.1983), which incorporates only the second criterion and the reasoning of Breimhorst, provides the current, correct test for determining whether quasi-judicial administrative functions violate the separation of powers doctrine.
Breimhorst involved a constitutional challenge to the Workers’ Compensation Act and system. A woman suffered a disfiguring injury on her job. Breimhorst, 227 Minn. at 414, 35 N.W.2d at 724. She received workers’ compensation benefits but she brought a common law tort action against her employer for damages that were not compensable under the act. Id. The supreme court ruled that the tort action was not available because the Workers’ Compensation Act was compulsory and provided'the complete and exclusive remedy against the employer. Id. at 429, 35 N.W.2d at 732. Neither the compulsory nature of the act nor the abrogation of established common law rights to tort damages and jury trial constituted a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Id. at 433-36, 35 N.W.2d at 734-36. In sum, the 1949 Breimhorst court held that the Workers’ Compensation Act was a proper exercise of the state’s police power, was an adequate remedy for employee injuries, and was subject to both district and appellate court “cheeks” on the exercise of the power.
In reaching its decision, Breimhorst recognized that the fluctuating needs and demands of a governed society can be met only if courts give deference to the legislature in the exercise of police power:
In the exercise of this power, which is as flexible and adaptable as the vital needs of our changing society, the state acts as the conservator of the public welfare. * * * A wide discretion is vested in the legislature in determining when a public welfare need exists and in the selection of an appropriate remedy.
Id. at 430, 35 N.W.2d at 732-33. The United States Supreme Court recognized that the public welfare interest underlying the workers’ compensation system included the “concern with the continued life and earning power of the individual” so as to prevent “pauperism, with its concomitants of vice and crime.” New York Cent. R.R. Co. v. White, 243 U.S. 188, 207, 37 S.Ct. 247, 254, 61 L.Ed. 667 (1917).
Like the Workers’ Compensation Act, the administrative child support process reflects the legislature’s exercise of police power in response to a public welfare concern. The supreme court has recognized the important public policies that affect legislative and judicial child support decisions. Regarding the recoupment of past child support, the court noted that there is a “strong state policy of assuring that children have the adequate and timely economic support of their parents,” while simultaneously limiting “the unnecessary drain of scarce social service and judicial resources.” Schaefer v. Weber, 567 N.W.2d 29, 33 (Minn.1997). Additionally, like the Workers’ Compensation Act, which abrogated common law rights and remedies and preempted the judicial system of redress for employee injuries, Minn.Stat. § 518.5511 is part of a system that is entirely legislative in jurisdiction and power. See, e.g. Melamed v. Melamed, 286 N.W.2d 716, 717 (Minn.1979) (“a trial court’s authority in divorce proceedings is strictly limited to that provided by statute”); Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374, 379, 133 N.W.2d 652, 657 (1965) (“[d]i-vorce jurisdiction is statutory and the district court has no power not delegated to it by statute.”)
For purposes of a separation of powers analysis, it is difficult to find legally meaningful differences between the workers’ compensation process and the administrative child support process. Both are administrative systems under the executive branch of government and both operate predominantly in a quasi-judicial capacity. It might be noted in passing that the workers’ compensation sys*830tem reflects a total transfer of plenary judicial power over a firmly-rooted, common law cause of action, while the child support process in question represents a comparatively minor delegation of judicial power over a limited class of family law proceedings. See Minn.Stat. § 518.5511, subd. 1(b) (1996) (only when the public authority is involved is the use of the administrative process for child support and maintenance required); see also Minn.Stat. § 518.5511, subd. 4(b) (1996) (recognizing the limited power of the ALJ; “[a]ny stipulation that involves a finding of contempt and a jail sentence * * * shall require the review and signature of a district court judge.”)
Ostensibly, the majority’s principal constitutional concern with Minn.Stat. § 518.5511 is the absence of district court intervention, right of approval or disapproval, or other oversight of the administrative decision. The first criterion in the Breimhorst test requires such district court involvement; and, at the time of the Breimhorst decision in 1949, orders from the industrial commission were in the nature of referees’ recommendations which could be reviewed and approved .or disapproved by the district court. See Minn. Stat. § 176.43 (1949) (commission’s findings and decision “may be approved or disapproved in the same manner as ⅜ * * the report of a referee”). The current workers’ compensation laws require no district court intervention; rather, decisions are final, effective, and binding when rendered by the administrative workers’ compensation judges. Minn.Stat. §§ 176.281, 176.371 (1996). Thus, the current Workers’ Compensation Act, under the majority’s view and under strict adherence to Breimhorst, does not satisfy Breimhorst’s first criterion. If that criterion is still valid law, the Workers’ Compensation Act violates the separation of powers doctrine and is unconstitutional.
In my view, Breimhorst ⅛ first criterion is no longer the law. Rather, Mack represents the contemporary refinement of Breimhorst. In Mack, the challenge was directed at the authority of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals to regulate attorney fees according to a statutory fee structure. 333 N.W.2d at 752. The challengers argued that the regulation of- attorney fees was inherently a judicial function and that legislative limits on the fees violated the separation of powers doctrine. Id. The supreme court disagreed, noting that the issue of attorney fees was ultimately within the supreme court’s “plenary and summary authority to control.” Id. (quoting Hollister v. Ulvi, 199 Minn. 269, 277, 271 N.W. 493, 497 (1937)). Mack also held that the fee process did not violate the separation of powers because “[i]n our view, final authority over attorney fees is not given to a nonjudicial body, since ultimately we can review all attorney fees decisions.” Id. The court then quoted the Breimhorst test and held: “By the same reasoning, power in the commission to set attorney fees is constitu--tionally permissible, because these awards are reviewable by this court.” Id. at 753 (emphasis added).
It is significant that Mack did not include the first Breimhorst criterion (district court review) in providing the reason that the administrative fee process is constitutionally permissible. Mack did not include district court review because it could not do so under the version of workers’ compensation it reviewed in 1983. By that time, the district court intervention contemplated by the 1949 Breimhorst decision no longer existed in the Workers’ Compensation Act. The court could not, therefore, accurately include it as a precondition to a properly separate exercise of powers. Mack should be read as a modification of the Breimhorst criteria. Mack implicitly abandoned the necessity of district court intervention as a precondition to a proper delegation of authority under the separation of powers doctrine, at least where appellate review is available.
The majority states that I have interpreted Mack as reducing the test for separation of powers to the single criterion of the availability of appellate review, and that such a rule “would permit the legislature to make wholesale transfers to an administrative agency of what were traditionally judicial functions * * * ,” Actually, I indicated that Mack also adopted the reasoning of Breimhorst. The Breimhorst reasoning encompasses more than the two stated mechanical criteria of district court approval and availability , of appellate review. The threshold constitutional question was whether the creation of the *831workers’ compensation system was a proper exercise of the legislature’s police power. Breimhorst, 227 Minn. at 429-30, 35 N.W.2d at 732. Breimhorst reasoned that the legislature properly exercised its police power because the subject was of vital public interest and there was a reasonable need for regulation. Id. at 430, 35 N.W.2d at 733. Breimhorst further reasoned that the workers’ compensation system was an adequate substitute for the common law cause of action and the constitutional right of jury trial that were abolished by the enactment of the workers’ compensation laws. Id. at 433-36, 35 N.W.2d at 734-36.
Reading Breimhorst and Mack together, which we must do, the separation of powers test has four components: (1) there is a vital public interest in the subject; (2) there is a reasonable need for statutory regulation; (3) the system of regulation is an adequate substitute for the procedures that formerly existed; and (4) there is a right of appellate review.
I believe that this synthesis of Breimhorst and Mack reflects the nature, purpose, and historical foundation of the doctrine of separation of powers and provides for the absolute retention of the most significant “check” on the exercise of governmental power, namely appellate review with authority to reverse and remand to ensure compliance with the law. Because judicial appellate review of administrative child support decisions is available, the “whole” power of the judicial branch is not exercised by the executive branch. The judicial branch fully retains the authority to scrutinize administrative child support decisions in the same manner and by the same standards as it may with respect to judicial child support decisions. The judicial branch fully retains the authority to correct errors to ensure compliance with the law. Breimhorst and Mack are satisfied in both the workers’ compensation and the administrative child support and maintenance frameworks.
Finally, it is appropriate to briefly address a few of the majority’s additional points. The majority expresses concern about the scope of the transfer of functions to ALJs under section 518.5511, suggesting that the statute allows ALJs to virtually usurp the authority of judges. Actually, the statute gives an ALJ the powers of a district judge only as to child support, maintenance and parentage issues and only when the public authority is involved. Minn.Stat. § 518.5511, subd. 1(b). ALJs are given no jurisdiction over domestic abuse, custody and visitation, or property issues and cannot issue contempt orders with jail sentences unless the district court approves. Id., subds. 1(b), 4(b). Furthermore, when such issues are combined with support issues, parties have a right to be heard in district court. Id., subd. 1(b).
The majority appears to suggest that the transfer of limited child support matters to the ALJs deprives parties of the opportunity to have the district court exercise its “inherent power to grant equitable relief.” In reality, however, judges and ALJs are mandated to apply mechanical, statutory, child support guidelines and are subject to specific restrictive criteria for any deviation. Minn.Stat. § 518.551. There is very little room for even the exercise of discretion, let alone the exercise of broader “equitable” powers.
The majority states that:
Because many support orders and all maintenance orders originate in district court, the administrative child support process thus places the ALJs in the constitutionally untenable position of reviewing and modifying judicial decisions.
This characterization is misleading because it suggests that ALJs have power to review district court awards and discretion as to the enforcement of those awards. There is no such power or discretion. Presumably, the majority is referring to the ALJs’ ability to modify previous orders. Such authority is available only if there has been a substantial change of circumstances since the entry of the previous order. Minn.Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2 (1996). Thus, if an ALJ modifies a previous district court child support order, the ALJ will always be doing so on the basis of substantially different facts.
Lastly, the majority relies on several cases from foreign jurisdictions as persuasive. Of those cases, one involved a statute drafted in response to the same federal mandate that prompted the Minnesota statute. See Drennen v. Drennen, 229 Neb. 204, 426 N.W.2d 252 (1988). The Drennen case is not persua*832sive because as early as 1920 the Nebraska Supreme Court held that under the Nebraska Constitution Nebraska district courts have equity jurisdiction that may be exercised without legislative enactment. Id., 426 N.W.2d at 259 (citing Matteson v. Creighton University, 105 Neb. 219, 179 N.W. 1009 (1920)). In 1981, the Nebraska Supreme Court reaffirmed its 1920 holding in Matte-son. Id. (citing Omaha Fish and Wildlife Club, Inc. v. Community Refuse, Inc., 208 Neb. 110, 302 N.W.2d 379 (1981)). Drennen also reconfirmed that since 1939, Nebraska specifically found jurisdiction over divorce and child support orders in the equity powers of its district courts. Id. (citing Wassung v. Wassung, 136 Neb. 440, 286 N.W. 340 (1939)). Based upon Nebraska’s precedential construction of its state constitution, Dren-nen easily concluded that the Nebraska Referee Act was unconstitutional because it removed original jurisdiction from the district court. Id. Minnesota has no similar constitutional history.
I remain unpersuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Minn.Stat. § 518.5511 violates the separation of powers mandate of the Minnesota Constitution. I would, therefore, deny the challenge and sustain the constitutional validity of the statute.