Mulroy v. Carey, 43 N.Y.2d 819 (1977)

The judiciary should not restrict the scope of legislation or impose restrictions on the executive branch, particularly concerning the Governor’s constitutional duty to ensure faithful execution of laws and the power to supersede a District Attorney, unless there is a clear violation of a constitutional mandate and other remedies are inadequate.

Summary

This case addresses the extent to which courts can interfere with the Governor’s power to direct the Attorney General to supersede a District Attorney in investigating and prosecuting criminal activities. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, emphasizing the separation of powers doctrine. While concurring in the result, Judge Cooke expressed concern over the majority’s suggestion that the court could interfere even when other remedies exist. He argued that such interference would be an unwarranted intrusion upon the executive branch, absent a clear constitutional violation and inadequate alternative remedies.

Facts

The specific facts underlying the dispute are not detailed in this memorandum decision. The core issue revolves around a challenge to the Governor’s action in directing the Attorney General to supersede a local District Attorney in a particular matter.

Procedural History

The case originated in a lower court, where the challenge to the Governor’s superseder order was likely unsuccessful. The Appellate Division affirmed that decision. The New York Court of Appeals then affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether the judiciary can restrict the Governor’s constitutional and statutory authority to direct the Attorney General to supersede a District Attorney in investigating and prosecuting criminal activities, absent a clear violation of a constitutional mandate and when other remedies may exist.

Holding

No, because the separation of powers doctrine dictates that the judiciary should not interfere with the executive branch’s exercise of its constitutional and statutory duties unless there is a clear constitutional violation and other remedies, such as political or legislative action, are inadequate.

Court’s Reasoning

The majority affirmed the lower court’s decision without a full opinion, but Judge Cooke’s concurrence highlights the key legal principles at stake. Judge Cooke emphasized the separation of powers doctrine and the Governor’s constitutional duty to ensure the faithful execution of laws. He cited previous cases affirming the Governor’s broad discretion in directing the Attorney General to act, noting that courts have historically been hesitant to review the exercise of this discretion. Judge Cooke quoted from People v Kramer, stating, “The law thus confers upon the Governor a discretion, and when he has reason to doubt that the laws are being executed, I know of no judicial method by which his reason may be questioned or measured.” He argued that the voters and their elected representatives are the appropriate bodies to check any abuse of the Governor’s power through the political process. The court should only intervene when these other remedies are inadequate and a clear constitutional violation exists. He stated, “When and if these processes are an inadequate means of fashioning a timely remedy to combat an abuse of the Governor’s power to order a superseder, unquestionably the courts will act to ensure compliance with the Constitution and the laws of the State.” Judge Cooke specifically criticized the majority’s suggestion that judicial interference might be warranted even when other remedies exist, deeming this an unwarranted intrusion upon the executive branch, violating the separation of powers principle. He reasoned that allowing such interference would “thwart the constitutional and statutory policy or engraft restrictions on the executive department where none exist.”