542 S.W.3d 370
Mo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Public Defender asserts FY2017 appropriation to Public Defender of $41,497,581; Governor withholds $3.5 million under article IV, section 27.
- SAM II shows $1 million of the $4.5 million increase to be paid in four quarterly installments; withholding described as rate control.
- Public Defender petitions for declaratory judgment/injunctive relief alleging four claims (Counts I–IV) challenging the withholding as constitutional violations; Count III alleges improper permanent reduction, others challenge scope/reciprocity with state as a whole and separation of powers.
- Trial court dismissed Counts I, II, and IV on ripeness; Count III dismissed as not ripe; ultimately, judgment on the pleadings granted to Governor on Counts I, II, and IV, and Count III deemed not ripe.
- As of end of FY2017, revenues were below estimates, making the withholding a permanent reduction; the appeal addresses ripeness and merits of Counts I, II, IV; mootness of Count III is resolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether withholding violated separation of powers. | Public Defender; Governor | Governor | No, not violated; Public Defender lacks judicial power. |
| Whether Public Defender is a state agency under article IV, section 27. | Public Defender is not an agency. | Public Defender is a state agency. | Yes, it is a state agency under article IV, section 27. |
| Whether reductions must be proportionate to the whole state. | Reduction must apply to state as a whole. | Reduction may target an agency without proportionate state-wide reduction. | Governor allowed to reduce the Public Defender below its appropriation without reducing the state as a whole. |
| Whether Count III was ripe and thus actionable. | Challenge to rate-control vs permanent reduction ripe. | Premature prior to end of fiscal year. | moot/not ripe; dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Liberty Sch. Dist. v. Holden, 121 S.W.3d 232 (Mo. banc 2003) (revenue-based ripeness for expenditure control)
- Schweich v. Nixon, 408 S.W.3d 769 (Mo. banc 2013) (prematurity of challenges to rate control vs permanent reduction)
- State ex rel. Sikeston R-VI Sch. Dist. v. Ashcroft, 828 S.W.2d 372 (Mo. banc 1992) (ripeness and Governor's expenditure control)
- Mo. Mun. League v. State, 489 S.W.3d 765 (Mo. banc 2016) (standard for reviewing motions to dismiss/judgment on pleadings; timing)
- State ex rel. Mathewson v. Bd. of Election Comm'rs of St. Louis Co., 841 S.W.2d 633 (Mo. banc 1992) (constitutional construction principles; reading provision in context)