ARIZONA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION v. Brewer
243 P.3d 619
Ariz. Ct. App.2010Background
- HB 2620 directed transfers from Agricultural Funds (Lettuce Fund, Citrus Fund, Grain Fund) to the general fund to balance the state budget.
- Funds are administered by Councils funded by grower fees and donations for marketing, promotion, and research of Arizona agriculture.
- Plaintiffs challenged HB 2620 as unconstitutional and sought injunctive relief and declaratory judgment.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Appellees, concluding funds are earmarked, not general fund monies, and cannot be swept without statutory change.
- Governor appealed, arguing HB 2620 constitutional and permitted the transfers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can HB 2620 transfer funds to the general fund? | Brewer argues the transfer is constitutional and permitted. | Appellees contend the funds are earmarked and cannot be swept without statutory amendments. | Yes; transfers permissible under constitutional powers. |
| Are the Agricultural Funds held in trust or custodial capacity? | Brewer asserts funds are not held for third parties and may be swept. | Appellees claim funds are held in trust or custodial capacity for producers. | Not held in trust or custodial capacity; funds are public monies subject to legislative power. |
| Do constitutional provisions about taxes (Article 9) apply to these fees? | Brewer contends sections 3 and 9 constrain use of tax-like fees. | Appellees argue fees are not property taxes and sections 3 and 9 do not apply. | Sections 3 and 9 do not apply; fees are not subject to those tax limitations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arpaio v. Maricopa County Bd. of Supervisors, 225 Ariz. 358, 238 P.3d 626 (App. 2010) (funds held in certain contexts; legislature's power over funds clarified)
- Navajo Tribe v. Ariz. Dep't of Admin., 111 Ariz. 279, 528 P.2d 623 (1954) (federal funds held in trust considerations; custodial status matters)
- Patches v. Indus. Comm'n, 220 Ariz. 179, 204 P.3d 437 (App. 2009) (statutory interpretation; not reading into statute beyond express terms)
- DeVries v. State, 221 Ariz. 201, 211 P.3d 1185 (App. 2009) (statutory interpretation; legislature's intent controls)
- Earhart v. Frohmiller, 65 Ariz. 221, 178 P.2d 436 (1947) (limits of legislative power over funds; constitutional interpretation)
- City of Glendale v. Betty, 45 Ariz. 327, 43 P.2d 206 (1935) (tax-related constitutional provisions apply to property taxes)
- Gila Meat Co. v. State, 35 Ariz. 194, 276 P.1 2 (1929) (excise tax concept and scope of taxation)
- Carr v. Frohmiller, 47 Ariz. 430, 56 P.2d 644 (1936) (property taxes and related constitutional constraints)