Moro v. State of Oregon
320 P.3d 539
| Or. | 2014Background
- Petitions filed for direct judicial review of the 2013 PERS legislation (SB 822, SB 861) challenging constitutionality and contractual/impairment claims.
- Intervenor Central Oregon Irrigation District sought disqualification of the Oregon Supreme Court justices and the Special Master.
- District argued judges have direct economic interests as PERS members and that participation would violate due process and disqualification rules.
- District proposed a pathway to create a Supreme Court composed of non-PERS bar members pro tempore, via circuit judges, to decide the cases.
- Court concluded the 2013 PERS review provisions confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court; rule of necessity applies; disqualification rules do not prevent decision by the sitting court;
- Disqualification motions denied; pro tempore bar proposal rejected; the decision proceeds with the current Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should Supreme Court justices be disqualified due to PERS membership? | District claims direct interest via PERS. | Court should decide under rule of necessity; jurisdiction fixed by statute. | Rule of necessity applies; disqualification not required. |
| Do disqualification rules in ORS 14.210 and Rule 3.10 bar this Court from deciding? | Interest could compromise impartiality and trigger disqualification. | Legislature and Code permit decision; rule of necessity overrides otherwise disqualifying interests. | Disqualification not required; rule of necessity applies. |
| Is the proposed non-judge, pro tempore Supreme Court feasible under Article VII(Amended) 2a and ORS 1.600? | A non-judge pro tempore court could hear the case. | Statutes/Constitution restrict pro tempore to judges or bar members for courts inferior to the Supreme Court; not for the Supreme Court. | Not feasible; only elected/appointed judges may be pro tempore on the Supreme Court. |
| Does the legislature's grant of direct jurisdiction to the Supreme Court for PERS challenges violate due process if judges have an interest? | Potential due process concerns about biased tribunal. | Rule of necessity resolves due process concerns by ensuring a tribunal exists. | Due process not violated; rule of necessity governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strunk v. PERB, 338 Or 145 (2005) (upheld advice on jurisdiction and necessity in PERS challenges)
- United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1981) (rule of necessity permits decision when no tribunal available)
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813 (1986) (due process considerations weighed against automatic disqualification)
- Woodward v. Pearson, 165 Or. 40 (1940) (state court judges' financial interests do not always disqualify them)