Argument recap: SEIU 775NW v. Gregoire
“Counsel, in this case, isn’t the focus really on what does ‘must’ mean?” Justice Mary Fairhurst’s question gets to the heart of SEIU 775NW v. Gregoire.
Petitioners SEIU 775NW claims that state law requires the governor to include in her budget a request for funds any negotiated union contract (if certified as financially feasible) or any award resulting from interest arbitration. SEIU 775NW and the governor’s office were unable to reach an agreement for the 2009-11 budget, and an arbitrator awarded the union’s workers a raise and fringe benefits amounting to $87 million. The governor failed to include the amount in her budget, something the union says the governor “must” do. Arguments yesterday focused on whether “must” in the statute is a mandatory obligation upon the governor, or if it is a permissive suggestion, subject to the governor’s discretion.
The justices are wrestling with the real-world consequences of ruling for either party. If the court rules for SEIU, the court is ordering the governor to return to the drawing board and make significant cuts to her budget. Not only that, but such an order seems to invade the governor’s duties and could be a violation of separation of power. But if the court rules for Gregoire, the plain reading of a statute is muddied.
Counsel for petitioners, Dmitri Iglitzin, argued the governor has binding duty to include arbitrated awards in her budget proposal. "If we think 'must' means 'may,' we are eviscerating the law," he said. SEIU 775NW is asking the Supreme Court to invalidate Gregoire’s original budget proposal and order her to propose a new budget with SEIU’s $87 million. (The case was originally joined by another union, which pushed the contract amounts to $100 million, which is the number referred to in argument.)
Several justices were concerned about dictating budget items to the governor and legislature. Justice James Johnson pointed out there are other unions facing a similar problem and wondered if the court will be asked to insert each contract into the budget separately. Justice Madsen asked if the court could order the governor to include the award in a future budget, rather than interfering in the budget process already underway. Justice Stephens pointed out that the governor must submit a balanced budget. "Those were the days, when we had just a $2.7 billion deficit," she joked. Justice Johnson and Chief Justice Alexander picked up on this. If $100 million is added to Gregoire’s budget, what gets removed? "This is a big deal,” said Alexander. Johnson asked if the $100 million could be taken from the Judiciary’s budget, and this seemed to send chills down several judicial spines.
Solicitor General Maureen Hart argued for the State, and she reminded the court of its recent ruling in Brown v. Owen. A writ of mandamus (ordering an official to take a specific action) is only appropriate where the law dictates a duty with precision and nothing is left to individual judgment. Hart said there is no statute requiring the governor to include anything in her budget—her only obligation is to propose a balanced budget. If the Supreme Court ruled for SEIU, she argued, it’s stepping into a discretionary field that belongs to the governor.
Justice Sanders asked if Hart could think of a better way to convey a mandatory duty than the word “must.” Hart said that “must” be interpreted with a more permissive flavor, in order to avoid a constitutional question. To do otherwise, she said, would lead to absurd consequences. What’s next? Could the legislature pass laws one year ordering the governor to include those items in her budget the next year? Hart dangled the possibility that budget mandates on the governor could be unconstitutional. Justice Sanders asked if she was arguing the statute is unconstitutional. Hart replied, “no,” and suggested that the Court interpret the law assuming it is constitutional.
SEIU 775NW is asking the Supreme Court for an expedited ruling—perhaps an order first with a full opinion to follow. We’ll see what they do. TVW has video of the argument:
