Putting it all together: a fictitious case to highlight the way things work.

 

On the first day of semester break, someone celebrating having gotten off academic probation ‘borrowed’ the Recreation Center’s Zamboni (that is the way cool thing that smoothes the ice on a skating rink).  This person, not being familiar with the ways of the Zamboni, managed to cut too deeply through the ice and damage the skating rink itself.  Our celebrant then managed to drive the Zamboni off the rink, doing much damage, ultimately destroying the Zamboni’s engine.  The damage total across all things is approximately $250,000.

 

While normally the Recreation Center would apply for funds from the Supplemental Operations Reserve (SOR) to pay for repairs and replacements, at the particular time that this accident occurs the SOR is empty and the Recreation Center can not pay for repairs from that source.

 

So, the Director of the Recreation Center asks the Legislative Council to authorize a temporary user fee of $0.25 per entrance to the Recreation Center, to take effect immediately and to last until the money to pay for repairs and replacements has been raised.

 

A number of students are understandably unhappy about this plan.  Jane, a student, files a temporary restraining order request with the Appellate Court asking the Court to block the Council from adopting the bill.  The Court declines to hear the request for two reasons:  there is no underlying complaint in regard to which the TRO request is made; and that the remedy sought exceeds the authority of the Court to grant.

 

The Legislative Council, knowing that this constitutes a cost center budget review, schedules the bill authorizing this fee to undergo two readings before the Legislative Council.

 

At the first hearing, several students unhappy with the plan voice their objections, but the bill passes 11-4-1.

 

Jane tries again.  This time she files a petition claiming that the petition discriminates against students who use the facility, and her doubly so because her karate class in Carlson Gym requires her to make two entries to the Rec Center per class meeting.  She also claims that such a fee can not be imposed in mid-year.  She adds a TRO request to block implementation of the fee until the underlying question is resolved.  Once again, the Court must decline the petition; this time for lack of ripeness – the Council has already said that the bill requires two readings before it will be implemented, and it has only had one so far.

 

So, the next Thursday comes around and the Legislative Council again passes the bill, this time on a vote of 10-6-1 (those pesky senators from the Law School are split and they wind up abstaining).  So, first thing Friday morning, Jane re-submits her petition.

The Chief Justice checks to see whether or no the Tri-Executives are going to exercise their veto over the bill; on hearing that they will not, the Chief Justice certifies the petition and TRO request to the Court.

 

The TRO hearing is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon, and the Director of the Rec Center agrees to not implement the fee until a ruling has been made in the TRO hearing.  By Monday morning, Jane, the sponsor of the bill at the Legislative Council and the Director of the Rec Center have all filed briefs.  Monday afternoon, the Director of Student Legal Services files an amicus brief supporting the right of the Rec Center to have an entrance/usage fee, as the Legal Services office uses a fee-for-service model for some of its services.

 

On Tuesday morning, Jane is preparing for the TRO hearing and finds something interesting.  She finds a section of the By-Laws that require off-cycle budget adjustments to be approved by a two-thirds vote at the Legislative Council.  She sends an email to the Chief Justice saying that she intends to bring this up at the hearing.  The Chief Justice advises Jane that she can not do this as it was not a stated merit in the filed request.

 

Tuesday afternoon, the time for the hearing comes but there is no sign of the sponsor of the bill or the Director of the Rec Center … and then thirty more minutes pass and Jane and the Court are the only ones there.  The Court proceeds with the hearing with only one party there.  Jane presents the parts of the argument she is permitted to present in the TRO hearing.  After deliberation, the Court unanimously finds that there will be irreparable harm if the TRO is not granted but the bill is later held unconstitutional (it seems that the Rec Center didn’t have a plan to track who paid how much on this fee).  The Court was closely divided over whether Jane was likely to prevail on the merits (bearing in mind that one of her major arguments couldn’t be presented in the TRO hearing).  Ultimately, though, four of the Justices did hold that she was likely to prevail on the grounds that this would not be a permitted off-cycle budget adjustment method.

 

After a sharply worded note to the bill’s sponsor and Rec Center Director about showing up for hearings, the main hearing is scheduled for Sunday afternoon.  Jane prepares a brief, but in her excitement forgets to mention the new grounds she found on Tuesday.  The Chief Justice, knowing that Jane wants to bring this forward, prepares an interrogatory for her to ask her to clarify whether or not the bill was properly adopted by the Legislative Council.  Jane catches the unstated reminder and adds an explanation of the problem with the bill being adopted by less than a two-thirds vote on second reading.

 

The sponsor of the bill, on reading the response to this interrogatory, tries to get the bill back onto the Legislative Council’s agenda to pass it with a strong enough majority.  A freak power outage causes that Thursday’s Legislative Council meeting to be cancelled as the building is closed until the following morning.

 

So, on to Sunday, and the main hearing.  Everyone shows up promptly this time.  During oral arguments, the sponsor of the bill says that he intends to resubmit the bill to Leg Council for ‘final’ approval.  One of the junior Justices, having served on the Leg Council before moving to the Court, asks whether the bill could still be considered ‘alive’ once a vote occurred that got less than the two-thirds approval.  The sponsor says it could, but Jane argues that it can not.

 

The Court also asks a number of questions about whether or not a means of tracking to resolve the “double discrimination” claim made by Jane could be resolved within a usage fee structure.  The Director of the Rec Center points out a way it could be done and expresses a willingness to implement this plan.

 

Oral arguments end, and the Justices deliberate in private.  After about ten minutes, the Justices announce that they will not have a ruling until Monday morning.

 

Monday morning, a preliminary ruling is announced, saying that the bill was not properly adopted and thus the fee is unconstitutional … at least for this session of the Legislative Council.

 

On Thursday morning, the full written ruling is released explaining that the two-thirds approval was the key for the Court, but that an identical bill could be introduced next session and might be constitutional if properly adopted.

 

Jane is so impressed by the process, but sufficiently fearful that a fee would be implemented, runs for and wins a seat on the Leg Council.  In the meantime, in exchange for a reduction in the criminal charges against their daughter, the parents of our Zamboni thief pay for all the repairs to the ice rink and equipment.