Filed: March 6, 2003

STATE EX REL METROPOLITAN
PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICES, INC.,
an Oregon corporation,

Plaintiff-Relator,

v.

HONORABLE PETER COURTNEY,
President of the Oregon Senate,
and HONORABLE KAREN MINNIS,
Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives,
for themselves and on behalf of all other members
of the Oregon Legislative Assembly,

Defendants.

On petition for alternative writ of mandamus filed February 10, 2003.

Don H. Marmaduke and Elden M. Rosenthal, Portland, filed the petition for plaintiff-relator.

Janet A. Metcalf, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the memorandum in opposition for defendants. With her on the memorandum were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

William B. Crow and Christina Thacker, of Miller Nash LLP, Portland, filed a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Oregon Fellows of the American College of Trial Lawyers.

Before Gillette, Presiding Justice, and Durham, Riggs, De Muniz, and Balmer, Justices.*

DE MUNIZ, J.

Petition for alternative writ of mandamus denied.

*Carson, Chief Justice, did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

DE MUNIZ, J.

This is an original mandamus proceeding brought in this court under ORS 34.120(2) and Article VII (Amended), section 2, of the Oregon Constitution. Relator is the principal provider of legal defense services to indigent persons accused of crimes committed in Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas counties. Defendants are the presiding officers of the two houses of the Legislative Assembly and their legislative colleagues. Relator seeks an alternative writ of mandamus directing defendants to provide what relator characterizes as "adequate" levels of funding for relator and, as is more pertinent to this case, for the judicial branch. Relator alleges that the legislative branch presently has failed to provide such levels of funding and that, as a result, the judicial branch is being prevented from performing its core functions (including trying criminal cases involving indigent accused defendants).

There is no question that this court has the inherent power under the Oregon Constitution to ensure that the judicial branch operates as an independent branch of government, free from undue interference by the other branches. See Rooney v. Kulongoski, 322 Or 15, 28, 902 P2d 1143 (1995) (separation of powers seeks to avoid potential for coercive influence between governmental departments). This court has not, however, previously determined whether that inherent power extends so far as to permit this court to order the legislative branch to appropriate an amount of money deemed by this court to be minimally necessary to support this court's core functions. (1) Neither side of the present controversy, however, appears to question that this court's inherent power extends to that exigency. Therefore, for purposes of this opinion, we assume that this court's power includes the authority to order the legislature to provide certain minimum levels of funding to sustain the core functions of the judicial branch. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that this court should exercise that power sparingly, such as in circumstances in which it appears that the ability of the judicial branch to perform its core functions is at stake. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the showing that relator makes regarding the problems presently confronting the judiciary (and, indeed, state government as a whole) falls short of demonstrating that this is a case in which this court should exercise that inherent power.

Relator alleges that, as a result of defendants' budget actions, the Judicial Department has announced that, effective March 1, 2003, counsel will not be available for appointment to the following trial-level case types: