Fogliano v. BRAIN EX REL. CTY. OF MARICOPA
229 Ariz. 12
Ariz. Ct. App.2011Background
- Prop 204 expanded AHCCCS eligibility from 34% to 100% of federal poverty guidelines, increasing enrollment; TLS fund funded the expansion but historically insufficient; Proposition 204 required supplementation from any other available sources, including general fund and federal monies; SB 1001, SB 1612, and SB 1619 were enacted in 2011 to implement a funding plan and enrollment freeze; AHCCCS enrollment for childless adults was frozen starting July 8, 2011, after which Petitioners sued seeking relief; superior court denied relief and Petitioners sought expedited review via the special action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the supplemental funding provision is an appropriation. | Fogliano argues the provision creates a self-executing funding obligation. | Betlach/State contends it is not an appropriation; does not specify a sum. | Not an appropriation. |
| Whether the supplemental funding provision requires supplementation from any other available sources. | Proposition 204 directs supplementation to ensure all eligible receive benefits. | Legislature has discretion to determine what is 'available' funding. | Mandatory directive to supplement from any other available sources. |
| Whether the question of whether the Legislature has appropriated from other available sources is justiciable. | Court should determine compliance and end enrollment freeze. | Budgetary decisions are political, not judicial, questions. | Nonjusticiable political question. |
| Impact on cap prohibition and Voter Protection Act regarding funding decisions. | Enrollment freeze violates cap prohibition and Voter Protection Act. | Non-justiciable; funding decisions entrusted to Legislature. | Not addressed on merits due to nonjusticiability; affirmed denial of relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cockrill v. Jordan, 72 Ariz. 318 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1951) (need for maximum limit to an appropriation; spending must be guarded by statutory limits)
- Kromko v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 216 Ariz. 190 (Arizona Supreme Court, 2007) (tuition-setting as a nonjusticiable political question)
- Forty-Seventh Legislature v. Napolitano, 213 Ariz. 482 (Arizona Supreme Court, 2006) (separation of powers; judiciary should refrain from political questions)
- Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1993) (textual commitment of issue to political branches; nonjusticiability standard)
- Arizona Early Childhood Development & Health Bd. v. Brewer, 221 Ariz. 467 (Arizona Supreme Court, 2009) (voter-protection act context; electorate vs. legislature balance)