Governor Brown proposes taking unconstitutional under-funding of Courts to unconscionable new high (low)

Yesterday, Governor Brown's rosy revenue projections ran smack into the brick wall of reality.  California's budgetary deficit isn't the paltry $9 billion predicted by the Governor.  Heck, we could have found $9 billion in the state's couch cushions.  No problem.

Instead, our deficit, thanks to the inexcusable fiscal malfeasance of years of legislators spending beyond our means, and the inexcusable electorate allowing them to do so, is more like $16 billion.  That's billion with a "B."  This year.  A one-year deficit against a $91 billion budget.

The solution proposed by the Governor is to (1) tax us more than we already are, and (2) cut stuff.  What gets cut?  As far as our constitutionally created branch of government knows as the judiciary is concerned, the cut proposed is another $544 million from the courts budget, which has already lost $650 million over the last three years.

One retired judge recently told me that the Los Angeles Superior Court is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.  But, for the most part, the leaders of the Courts, while complaining loudly about the cuts, are too political to take on the Legislature and Governor over this constutional crisis.

Where is the leadership? When are the advocates of Court access and the constitutional scholars and the judges crushed under this unchecked robbery going to stand up and demand that the third branch of government receive the first distribution of funds, regardless of what revenue is available.  The Courts are entitled to protected funds sufficient to discharge their constitutional role in California.

See, for example, coverage in the Los Angeles Times.

The unconstitutional dismantling of California's judicial branch continues unchallenged

I have written previously about the unconstitutionality of underfunding California's Courts, including a Daily Journal article posted here.  And with every additional funding cut, I believe that the legislative and executive branches march further down the path of unconstitutional conduct.  In the latest example of grevious injury to our Courts, the Los Angeles Superior Court has announced $30 million in additional cuts (about $70 million in prior cuts).  These cuts include the loss of 56 courtrooms, layoffs of 100 additional non-courtroom staff (above 329 layoffs and 229 attrition-based reductions), and a significant reduction in court reporter availability.

It is my fondest wish that a victim of these latest layoffs, a litigant, and a judge will all step forward and challenge the constitutionality of starving a co-equal branch of government.  Where are the checks and balances when one allegedly equal branch exists at the mercy of politicians that refuse to make the tough choices necessary to ensure, as a first priority, that the judicial branch is capable fo resolving the legal disputes it was created to resolve?

Regardless of whether you represent plaintiffs, or defendants, civil litigants or those charged with crimes, you cannot acquiesce to this relentless assault on fundamental, constitutional rights.   This is not a political question.  The California legislature is not constitutionally empowered to eviscerate the judicial branch.

Write your legislators.  Tell them that they must discharge their constitutional obligations before any other consideration.

And no, this is not the end of my rant.  It's just a pause...

If you thought that Court under-funding in California was unconstitutional last year.... "Whoa, Nelly!"

According to press reports, the legislature's court budget cuts of $150 million for operations and $310 million in court construction funding have increased after Governor Jerry Brown used line item veto power to slash another $22 million from California trial court operations and security.  Underfunding at this level is unconstitutional.  The judiciary is a co-equal, constitutional branch of government.  It cannot function correctly at this funding level.  The Legislature and Governor do not suffer equivalent operational impairment from the budget cuts they impose elsewhere.  Only the judicial branch must suplicate, hat in hand, for enough money to do the people's work.

The past three years account for a 30% general funding cut for California's Courts.  I don't think their obligations decreased by 30%.  If anything, a difficult economy creates more litigation events.

I wrote about this previously here and copied a Daily Journal article on the subject here.

The government can sneak on your property and track your car with GPS, no warrant required; illegal options exist to jam trackers

In United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2010), a panel of the Ninth Circuit concluded that no Fourth Amendment issues were implicated when police snuck onto Pineda-Moreno’s property at night and attached a GPS tracking device to the underside of his car. The device continuously recorded the car’s location, allowing police to monitor all of Pineda-Moreno’s movements without the need for visual surveillance and without a warrant. The panel held that none of that implicated the Fourth Amendment, even though the government conceded that the car was in the curtilage of Pineda-Moreno’s home at the time the police attached the tracking device.

A petition for rehearing en banc was filed.  The petition did not receive the majority vote necessary for rehearing and was denied.  Chief Judge Kozinski had some choice words for the Court:

Having previously decimated the protections the Fourth Amendment accords to the home itself, United States v. Lemus, 596 F.3d 512 (9th Cir. 2010) (Kozinski, C.J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc); United States v. Black, 482 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2007) (Kozinski, J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc), our court now proceeds to dismantle the zone of privacy we enjoy in the home’s curtilage and in public. The needs of law enforcement, to which my colleagues seem inclined to refuse nothing, are quickly making personal privacy a distant memory. 1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it’s here at last.

Slip op., at 11504.  On fire, the Chief Judge continued:

The panel authorizes police to do not only what invited strangers could, but also uninvited children—in this case crawl under the car to retrieve a ball and tinker with the undercarriage. But there’s no limit to what neighborhood kids will do, given half a chance: They’ll jump the fence, crawl under the porch, pick fruit from the trees, set fire to the cat and micturate on the azaleas. To say that the police may do on your property what urchins might do spells the end of Fourth Amendment protections for most people’s curtilage.

Slip op., at 11508.  In a particularly introspective moment, the Chief Judge argues that the bench is lacking in persons familiar with the life experiences of the poor:

There’s been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there’s one kind of diversity that doesn’t exist: No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter. Judges, regardless of race, ethnicity or sex, are selected from the class of people who don’t live in trailers or urban ghettos. The everyday problems of people who live in poverty are not close to our hearts and minds because that’s not how we and our friends live. Yet poor people are entitled to privacy, even if they can’t afford all the gadgets of the wealthy for ensuring it. Whatever else one may say about Pineda-Moreno, it’s perfectly clear that he did not expect—and certainly did not consent—to have strangers prowl his property in the middle of the night and attach electronic tracking devices to the underside of his car. No one does.

Slip op., at 11508-9.  Ouch.

Speaking of ways to protect your privacy from a government run amok, Gizmodo points out that certain cheap (but illegal) GPS jammers are available in an article prompted by this decision.  Please don't engage in any unlawful conduct to protect your constitutional rights.  That would be wrong.

Ninth Circuit: Court faced with question of first impression when asked to construe CCRAA

In a suit alleging violation of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.1 et seq., the Ninth Circuit, in Carvalho v. Equifax Information Services LLC (9th Cir. Aug. 18, 2010), faced a question of statutory interpretation not yet answered by a California Court.  Explaining its task, the Court said:

The California courts have yet to consider whether a plaintiff must demonstrate that a disputed item is inaccurate to obtain relief for a violation of the CCRAA’s reinvestigation provisions. However, because the CCRAA “is substantially based on the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, judicial interpretation of the federal provisions is persuasive authority and entitled to substantial weight when interpreting the California provisions.” Olson v. Six Rivers Nat’l Bank, 3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 301, 309 (Ct. App. 2003) (internal citations omitted).

Slip op., 12117.  After examining how federal courts approached the same question under the FCRA, the Court concluded that "inaccuracy" would be a requirement of a claim arising under California's CCRAA:

“We generally adhere to the maxim of statutory construction that similar terms appearing in different sections of a statute should receive the same interpretation.” United States v. Nordbrock, 38 F.3d 440, 444 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Chiang v. Verizon New Eng. Inc., 595 F.3d 26, 37 (1st Cir. 2010) (deeming the term “inaccurate” in section 1681i(a) to be “essentially the same” as the term “incomplete or inaccurate” in section 1681s-2(b)). Moreover, we operate under the assumption that California courts would interpret the FCRA and CCRAA consistently. See Olson, 3 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 309. Accordingly, in considering whether Carvalho’s credit report was inaccurate within the meaning of the CCRAA, we are guided by Gorman’s “patently incorrect or materially misleading” standard.

Slip op., at 12119.

The Court also rejected a preemption argument, finding that the savings provision of the FCRA would not have saved a state law violation statute if the state law remedy were not also available.

The cuts continue; L.A. Court loses hundreds of employees

One day after running my Perspective column, entitled "Legislature Using Purse Strings to Bind Judiciary," the Daily Journal has published a story today that chronicles the massive cuts to the Los Angeles County Superior Court system.  Rebecca U. Cho & Catherine Ho, Hundreds Of L.A. Court Workers to Be Laid Off Today (March 16, 2010) www.dailyjournal.com [subscription required]. 

329 employees are scheduled to receive pink slips today.  In addition, it is reported that 12 courtrooms will close, but the specifics have not been announced.    The Los Angeles Superior Court currently plan to lay off an additional 500 employees in September.  Los Angeles court officials are reportedly "facing a $79 million budget deficit in the current fiscal year, which is expected to grow to $120 million next year." Judge Charles McCoy is reported to have asked the Judicial Council for permission to use court construction funds for court operations.

In an article by the Los Angeles Times, Presiding Judge McCoy's missing to communicate the court funding crisis was described:

Los Angeles County Presiding Judge Charles "Tim" McCoy's message is loud and clear: His court system, the largest trial court in the nation, is facing deep fiscal trouble in the years ahead due to drastic cuts in state government funding.

Victoria Kim, L.A. County's top judge faces steep opposition to fund diversion proposal (February 16, 2010).  In that article, the uphill battle in front of Judge McCoy is spelled out.  According to Ann O'Malley. O'Malley, who chairs the state's Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee, 53 presiding judges of the state's 58 trial courts have told her they oppose Judge McCoy's proposed use of the construction fund to cover operating expenses.

If it is even necessary to consider layoffs of hundreds of employees or utilizing a court construction fund backed by bonds, not budget appropriations, to support basic operations, something is seriously awry in California's budgeting process.  Whether or not you agree with Judge McCoy's specific predictions and approach to the problem, there is no disputing that a problem of colossal magnitude now exists.  Pretty soon we won't need to debate tort reform or amendments to California's class action procedures; nobody will be able to have a civil case heard by a judge before the parties and counsel are all dead of old age.

Update on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 2:42PM by The Complex Litigator

The Press Release from the Los Angeles Superior Court is now available at the Los Angeles Superior Court website.

Daily Journal article on unconstitutionality of underfunding California courts

Today's Daily Journal includes a Perspective column, entitled "Legislature Using Purse Strings to Bind Judiciary," authored by colleague Linh Hua and me.  The column discusses in greater detail the unconstitutionality of underfunding the judicial branch.  The article is posted below with permission of Daily Journal Corp. (2010).

If you have difficulty viewing the flash object, the direct link is here.  I thank the editorial staff of the Daily Journal for quickly providing the posting permission.

California's budget problems are threatening a constitutional crisis

A colleague of mine (Linh Hua) and I have been talking out an issue that has troubled me for some time now.  It occurred to me that there must be a constitutional limit of some sort to the underfunding of California's judiciary.  I didn't have any specific case in mind when the concept crossed my mind, and my discussions with other practitioners elicited general agreement without specific supporting authority.  Coincidentally, just as I began to look into this issue, a confirming answer of sorts dropped into my lap.

This evening (for publication on 2/24/2010), Joel Stashenko reports in the New York Law Journal that New York's highest court has held unconstitutional the failure to grant pay raises to judges for the last 11 years.  Joel Stashenko, Denial of N.Y. Judicial Pay Raise Is Ruled Unconstitutional (February 24, 2010) www.law.com.  The high court (the New York Court of Appeals) declared the de facto pay freeze a "crisis" that threatened the separation of powers.  Declining requests for an order mandating an immediate pay raise, the Court said, "By ensuring that any judicial salary increases will be premised on their merits, this holding aims to strike the appropriate balance between preserving the independence of the Judiciary and avoiding encroachment on the budget-making authority of the Legislature."

While the Court proceeded with caution, it also warned, "It [the Legislature] should keep in mind, however, that whether the Legislature has met its constitutional obligations in that regard is within the province of this Court," citing Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803). "We therefore expect appropriate and expeditious legislative consideration."

Writing for the 5-1 majority, Judge Pigott said, "Because the Separation of Powers doctrine is aimed at preventing one branch of government from dominating or interfering with the functioning of another co-equal branch, we conclude that the independence of the judiciary is improperly jeopardized by the current judicial pay crisis, and this constitutes a violation of the Separation of Power doctrine."

In California we don't just have a pay crisis, we have a funding crisis.  Our Courts are closed one Wednesday each month, and I've heard mention that an additional closure day is under consideration by some.  We've lost a complex litigation court in Los Angeles County, a court designed to better manage the burdens imposed by complex, multi-party litigation.  If the pay issue in New York is a constitutional "crisis," what California is experiencing is a constitutional debacle.  The judiciary is not just impaired here, it is hamstrung and handcuffed.  As participants operating within one of the presumably co-equal branches of government, we must be vigilant and speak out when it is clear that a failure by one branch imperils the unfettered operation of another.

I intend to continue speaking about this issue until the futility of it all depresses me into silence.

California Proposition 8 elicits constitution-based, discovery rights opinion from Ninth Circuit

For those following the complicated twists and turns of litigation over California Ballot Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, the litigation about that measure continues.  Today, the Ninth Circuit, in Perry, et al. v. Arnold Schwarzenegger (9th Cir. January 4, 2009), issued a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to enter a protective order barring access to internal campaign communications of proponents of the Proposition.  I'm no constitutional law expert, but high-stakes litigation like this tends to create its own complexity, so I simply note the opinion for the constitutional law scholars, fans and practitioners.  I can say that it's not every day that you see discovery limited because it would intrude on the the First Amendment right of freedom to associate.  The one-page appendix to the opinion is also available.