Court Opinion

ID: 9634615
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:18:13.028645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:06.652500
License: Public Domain

PASHMAN, J.,
dissenting.
Because I believe that N.J.S.A. 26:2H-7.1 is unconstitutional special legislation, I respectfully dissent.
*450N.J. Const., Art. IV, § 7, par. 9(8) prohibits the Legislature from passing
... any private, special or local laws ... [g]ranting to any corporation, association or individual any exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise whatev-
This limitation on legislative powers has a firm historical foundation and grew out of a need to curb abuses peculiar to the legislative process. As a leading commentator has explained,
the legislative process lacks the safeguards of due process and the tradition of impartiality which restrain the courts from using their powers to dispense special favors. Over the course of time, as a result, the propensities of legislatures to indulge in favoritism through special legislation developed into a major abuse Of governmental power.
As the bulk of special laws grew demands for reform became insistent, and constitutional prohibitions were enacted to limit the practice of enacting special legislation and to achieve greater universality and uniformity in the operation of statute law in respect to all persons. [2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction § 40.01 at 135 (4th ed. 1973)]
The statute challenged in this case illustrates the kind of “favoritism” that the constitutional prohibition should prevent: the passage of legislation clearly intended to benefit one person only and without regard to similarly situated persons. The challenged statute provides:
Any nonprofit entity chartered by the State of New Jersey as a nonprofit corporation pursuant to Title 15 of the Revised Statutes, which had been so chartered and had acquired land for the purpose of constructing a hospital prior to the effective date of the act to which this act is a supplement, and when the land so acquired by such nonprofit corporation is located within a municipality that has provided an appropriation for the construction of a health care facility as authorized by P.L. 1954, c. 266 (C. 44:5-10.2), then the proposed hospital of such nonprofit corporation shall be exempt from the requirement of section 7 of P.L. 1971, c. 136 (C. 26:2H-7) relating to a certificate of need. [N.J.S.A. 26:2H — 7.1 (emphasis added)]
It is apparent that the statute, so hedged with qualifications, was drafted with only Brick Township Hospital in mind. This conclusion is squarely supported by the legislative history of the statute. The relevant Senate committee statement reads in its entirety as follows:
*451This bill is narrowly drawn to permit certain proposed health care facilities exemption from the requirement to obtain a certificate of need under the Health Care Facilities Planning' Act. The bill would have the effect of enabling a hospital to be built in Brick Town, Ocean county.
In releasing this bill the committee acknowledges the need for a particular hospital whose construction was prohibited by the Statewide Health Coordinating Council. However, this hospital represents a unique situation and committee approval of this legislation should not be construed as an attempt to undermine the State health planning process, which has functioned so well in New Jersey through the efforts of dedicated health professionals and lay persons. [Senate Institutions, Health and Welfare Committee, Statement to Assembly No. 369, June 1, 1978]
I fully agree with the majority’s statements of the governing principles of law: that the test of a special law is “the appropriateness of the objects which it excludes,” ante at 445, and that “a class of one is constitutionally permissible,” ante at 448. However, the Legislature is not constitutionally permitted to enact a law that unreasonably excludes hospitals similarly situated to the one covered by the statute. The Committee Statement reveals that the Legislature has not considered whether other hospitals in situations similar to that of Brick Township Hospital should also be exempted from the certificate of need requirement. There may be hospitals which are funded by municipal appropriations but which are located in municipalities that have not helped pay for the construction, and hospitals funded by county appropriations rather than municipal appropriations.1 Whatever policy reasons led the Legislature to conclude that a hospital like Brick Township Hospital should be exempt from the certificate of need requirement necessarily would apply to hospitals in those classes as well. But the Legislature chose to limit the terminology of the exemption to *452facts peculiar to Brick Township Hospital. This choice amounts to special legislation prohibited by the State Constitution.
The facts of the case strongly support the conclusion that N.J.S.A. 26:2H-7.1 is special legislation. As the majority acknowledges, ante at 436-37, Brick Township Hospital initially tried, without success, to obtain an exemption from the certificate of need requirement through proper administrative channels. This fact, taken together with the unnaturally narrow terms of the statute and the revealing legislative statement quoted above,2 all too strongly suggest that N.J.S.A. 26:2H-7.1 was enacted solely to enable Brick Township Hospital to circumvent statutory and administrative requirements which it was otherwise unable to meet.
The wisdom of state-wide planning for health care facilities, or Brick Township’s need for its own hospital are, of course, irrelevant to this case. What I fear is that the decision of the Court today will be taken as a signal to any individual aggrieved or inconvenienced by a statute to seek special, effectively “private” legislative dispensation from coverage by the statute. This is what the constitutional prohibition of special legislation was designed to avoid.
Because I would hold N.J.S.A. 26:2H-7.1 to be unconstitutional special legislation which violates N.J.Const., Art. IV, § 7, par. 9(8), I express no views as to whether it also violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Justice CLIFFORD joins in this dissenting opinion.

 ln this regard, it should be noted that N.J.S.A. 44:5-10.2, which is relied upon in the challenged statute, authorizes any municipality which has no municipally maintained hospital to appropriate funds for the construction of “any hospital or hospitals located in the municipality or in any other municipality in the county” (emphasis added).
It should also be observed that N.J.S.A. 44:5-14 permits counties to appropriate money for the construction of hospitals “located in the county.”

 I also note that the Governor signed the act into law at the site of the proposed hospital in Brick Township, at which time he is reported to have said that although he favored the certificate of need requirement, he approved of the exemption of Brick Township Hospital from this requirement.