Bourquin v. Cuomo, 85 N.Y.2d 781 (1995)
An executive order does not violate the separation of powers doctrine if it implements a broad legislative policy without creating new policy or usurping legislative prerogatives.
Summary
This case addresses the constitutional limits of executive power in New York State. The Court of Appeals held that Governor Cuomo’s Executive Order creating the Citizens’ Utility Board (CUB) did not violate the separation of powers doctrine. The Court reasoned that the Executive Order was consistent with existing legislative policy to protect consumer interests and promote citizen participation in utility matters, and it did not create new policy or usurp legislative authority. The CUB was designed to better implement existing policy, which falls within the Governor’s executive authority.
Facts
Governor Mario Cuomo issued Executive Order No. 141, creating the Citizens’ Utility Board (CUB), a private, non-profit organization to represent residential utility customers before the Public Service Commission. The Executive Order allowed the CUB access to state agency mailings to disseminate information and solicit memberships. The CUB was required to reimburse the agencies for any increased postage costs.
Procedural History
Pierre Bourquin and other non-profit corporations challenged the Executive Order in Supreme Court, arguing it violated the separation of powers doctrine. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, upholding the Executive Order. The Appellate Division reversed, declaring the Executive Order unconstitutional because it exceeded stated legislative policy. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Governor’s Executive Order No. 141, creating the Citizens’ Utility Board (CUB), violated the principle of separation of powers under the New York State Constitution.
Holding
No, because the Executive Order was consistent with the broad legislative policy of protecting consumer interests and promoting citizen participation in utility matters, and it did not create new policy or usurp legislative authority.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that while the separation of powers doctrine requires the Legislature to make critical policy decisions and the executive branch to implement them, this separation is not absolute. The Court cited Clark v. Cuomo, emphasizing the necessity of some overlap between the branches and the flexibility afforded to the Governor in enforcing legislative policy.
The Court found that Executive Order No. 141 was analogous to the Executive Order upheld in Clark v. Cuomo. In both cases, the Governor created an entity (the CUB and the Voter Registration Task Force, respectively) to further a broad legislative goal (protecting consumers and promoting voter registration, respectively). The Court stated, “[I]t is only when the Executive acts inconsistently with the Legislature, or usurps its prerogatives, that the doctrine of separation is violated.” Clark v. Cuomo, 66 N.Y.2d at 189.
The Court distinguished the case from those where Executive Orders were struck down because they contained detailed policy directives. Executive Order No. 141 merely created a procedural mechanism to better implement existing legislative policy. The Court also noted that the Legislature’s failure to pass similar legislation did not indicate legislative disapproval.
The Court concluded that the Executive Order did not formulate specific policy, but provided a means to better represent residential utility customers whose interests were not being adequately addressed by existing agencies. Creating a new administrative mechanism to implement legislative policy does not offend the Constitution.