NCJ Number
141974
Journal
Maryland Law Review Volume: 52 Issue: 1 Dated: (1993) Pages: 217-255
Date Published
1993
Length
39 pages
Annotation
Recent cases illustrate the increasing jurisprudence on the issue of the judiciary's increasing use of inherent powers cases to compel other branches of government to provide adequate funding to the judicial branch.
Abstract
In both the Alamance case in North Carolina and the Wachtler case in New York, the underlying disputes arose from the underfunding of the judiciary by the branches of government responsible for appropriations. Both actions asserted the right of citizens derived from State constitutions to have a judicial system with sufficient resources to undertake an orderly and efficient administration of justice. The typical pattern for these cases is for the trial judge to order funding, with the appellate court confirming the trial court's power to compel action while modifying the lower court's order to reduce its financial impact on the funding authority. Thus, although State jurisprudence on the issues is diverse, appellate courts generally recognize but restrain the inherent powers of lower courts. These restraints include procedural restraints, substantive restraints, and other nonjudicial restraints. Alternatives to the use of inherent judicial power to compel funding include unitary funding, State-level financing, or both; refusal to proceed without adequate resources; and increased efforts to generate public support. Each of these approaches entails potential problems. Therefore, public debate will be needed regarding the level of justice a State can afford as the aging of the population increases demand for other public services and increases the pressures on court funding. Footnotes