Berry v. Crawford, 990 N.E.2d 410

Dispute over whether Indiana courts may review the House's collection of fines from absent members who left to block a quorum.
2011: Democratic members absented themselves; Republicans fined them; payroll grids were submitted to withhold fines from pay.
Berry I: trial court dismissed the claim about the House’s exclusive authority for fines but allowed review of wage claims; interlocutory appeal granted.
2012: Berry II: trial court held fines violated wage statutes and issued injunction; court ordered return of amounts and barred future withholding.
Indiana Supreme Court held that challenges to the exercise of legislative power with no constitutional limiting provision are nonjusticiable and must be dismissed; wage claims also rejected as they would undercut separation of powers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether collection of legislative fines is justiciable	Plaintiffs contend courts may review collection under wage statutes and constitutional limits.	Defendants argue legislative discipline is exclusive to each house and nonjusticiable.	Nonjusticiable; dismissed for lack of judicial review.
Whether Wage Payment Statute applies to the fines	Wage statute applies to wages due, including per diem, for nonpayment.	Wage statute does not govern lawmakers or internal House discipline.	Not applicable to override legislative discretion; must be dismissed on nonjusticiability grounds.
Whether Article 4, Section 29 limits the discipline by fines	Compensation fixed by law; reducing compensation via fines may implicate S 29.	Fines are discipline, not compensation, so S 29 does not limit collection.	Not to be reconciled; the issue resolved on nonjusticiability grounds.
Whether the per diem is a wage subject to review	Per diem payments are wages under the Wage Payment Statute.	Per diem is not compensation for services; not a wage under the statute.	Court would not determine merits; analysis limited to whether statute applies within prudential boundaries.

Masariu v. Marion County Bd. of Comm'rs, 621 N.E.2d 1098 (Ind. 1993) (separation of powers limits on judicial review of internal legislative matters)
Lindemann v. Board of Comm’rs of Perry County, 165 Ind. 186, 73 N.E. 912 (Ind. 1905) (legislative salary/compensation power evolved; constitutional limits)
State ex rel. Acker v. Reeves, 229 Ind. 126, 95 N.E.2d 838 (Ind. 1951) (legislative election/election returns within exclusive legislative authority)
Ellingham v. Dye, 178 Ind. 336, 99 N.E. 1 (Ind. 1912) (exemplifies limits of courts over legislative amendments/constitutional duties)
Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Ctr. Auth. v. City of Birmingham, 912 So.2d 204 (Ala. 2005) (nonjusticiable political question when legislature determines internal voting rules)
State ex rel. James v. Reed, 364 So.2d 303 (Ala. 1978) (constitutional limitation allows judicial enforcement of certain restrictions on legislative qualifications)
Brady v. Dean, 173 Vt. 542, 790 A.2d 428 (Vt. 2001) (core legislative function not subject to judicial scrutiny)
Commission on Ethics v. Hardy, 125 Nev. 285, 212 P.3d 1098 (Nev. 2009) (discipline of legislators tied to core legislative function cannot be delegated)