454 P.3d 962
Cal.
2019
Read the full case

Background

  • In 2010 the Legislature (amid recession) enacted SB 856 and AB 1610 to direct that portions of existing state education funding be prospectively treated as "offsetting revenues" under Gov. Code §17557(d)(2)(B) to satisfy reimbursement for two prior Commission-determined mandates: the Graduation Requirements (Ed. Code §51225.3) and Behavioral Intervention Plans (Ed. Code §56523(f); BIP mandate later repealed for years after 2013).
  • The statutes at issue are Education Code §42238.24 (directing certain general-purpose state education funds to offset teacher salary costs for the graduation mandate) and Education Code §56523(f) (directing special education funds to first offset BIP mandate costs).
  • CSBA (school districts and county offices) sued, alleging on facial grounds that those statutes and Gov. Code §17557(d)(2)(B) violate California Constitution art. XIII B §6 (mandate reimbursement must be by the State) and art. III §3 (separation of powers), and challenging related Government Code provisions.
  • The trial court denied relief; the Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the Court of Appeal.
  • The Supreme Court held (1) on a facial challenge the Legislature may designate existing state funding prospectively as reimbursement (it is not limited to appropriating "new" funding), and (2) the statutory mechanism for updating parameters to reflect "offsetting revenues" does not, on its face, violate separation of powers because it does not nullify the Commission’s mandate determinations.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether designating pre-existing state education funding as "offsetting revenues" to satisfy mandate reimbursement violates art. XIII B §6 CSBA: Article XIII B §6 requires the State to provide additional funding; re-labeling existing funds forces local agencies to pay mandates with their own (local) proceeds State: Legislature has broad budgetary discretion and may allocate or reallocate state funds, including designating existing funds to offset mandate costs Held: No facial violation; Legislature may prospectively designate existing state funding as offsetting revenues to satisfy reimbursement obligations
Whether Gov. Code §17557(d)(2)(B) (updating parameters for offsetting revenues) violates separation of powers by nullifying Commission decisions CSBA: Allows Legislature to effectively overrule or negate final Commission mandate determinations and undermines finality State: The two-step framework separates mandate-finding from reimbursement calculations; updating parameters does not erase the underlying mandate finding Held: No violation; the statutes do not nullify Commission determinations and thus do not breach separation of powers on their face
Whether "offsetting revenues" in §17557(d)(2)(B) must mean "additional revenue specifically intended" (as used in §17556(e)) CSBA: Term should be narrowly construed to prevent circumvention of §17556(e) protections State: Sections serve different functions; Legislature may provide a mechanism to update reimbursement parameters for existing mandates Held: Term need not be so narrowly read; no constitutional avoidance requires imposing CSBA's narrow meaning
Whether CSBA’s facial challenge can succeed absent any district showing the designated funds are insufficient CSBA: Generalized reduction in unrestricted funds shows constitutional problem; as-applied issues evidencing insufficiency may arise State: Facial challenge fails without proof that designated funds are inadequate in the generality of cases; as-applied remedies remain available Held: Facial challenge fails; affected districts may pursue as-applied claims if and when designated funds prove insufficient

Key Cases Cited

  • County of San Diego v. State of California, 15 Cal.4th 68 (Cal. 1997) (describes Commission’s two-step mandate determination and reimbursement framework)
  • Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates, 30 Cal.4th 727 (Cal. 2003) (Kern) (program funds provided by the State may satisfy mandate reimbursement)
  • California Teachers Assn. v. State of California, 20 Cal.4th 327 (Cal. 1999) (standards for facial invalidation of statutes)
  • California School Boards Assn. v. State of California, 19 Cal.App.5th 566 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (Court of Appeal opinion affirming statutes’ validity)
  • California School Boards Assn. v. State of California, 171 Cal.App.4th 1183 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (discusses separation-of-powers concerns from legislative abrogation of Commission decisions)
  • Carmel Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. State of California, 25 Cal.4th 287 (Cal. 2001) (legislature’s authority to set fiscal priorities and allocate limited revenues)
  • County of Sonoma v. Commission on State Mandates, 84 Cal.App.4th 1264 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (reimbursement claim fails when state reduces revenue granted to local government)
  • Superior Court v. County of Mendocino, 13 Cal.4th 45 (Cal. 1996) (separation of powers doctrine recognizes interdependence of branches)
Read the full case