THE BERGEN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, INC. VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY (L-2125-16, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4353-16T1
THE BERGEN COUNTY BAR
ASSOCIATION, INC., THE
PASSAIC COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION,
INC. and MIDDLESEX COUNTY BAR
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, and THE
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY,
Defendants-Respondents.
_______________________________
Submitted May 24, 2018 – Decided June 21, 2018
Before Judges Reisner and Gilson.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Mercer County, Docket No. L-
2125-16.
The Epstein Law Firm, PA, attorneys for
appellants Bergen County Bar Association, Inc.
and Passaic County Bar Association, Inc.
(Michael J. Epstein, of counsel and on the
joint briefs; Michael A. Rabasca, on the joint
briefs).
Rebenack, Aronow & Mascolo, LLP, attorneys for
appellant Middlesex County Bar Association,
Inc. (Craig M. Aronow, of counsel and on the
joint briefs).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney
for respondents (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Joseph C.
Fanaroff, Assistant Attorney General, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiffs The Bergen County Bar Association, Inc., The
Passaic County Bar Association, Inc., and Middlesex County Bar
Association, Inc., appeal from a May 24, 2017 order dismissing
their complaint against the State of New Jersey and the Supreme
Court of New Jersey.
Plaintiffs, joined by a group of bail bond and surety
companies,1 challenged several provisions of the Criminal Justice
Reform Act (Act) authorizing an increase in court fees to fund
criminal justice reform. See N.J.S.A. 2B:1-6 to -13. They also
challenged the constitutionality of Rule 1:43, which implemented
the legislation by instituting the fee increases. In the trial
court, as on this appeal, plaintiffs argued that the Act and the
Rule violated the bill origination clause of the New Jersey
Constitution, N.J. Const. art IV, § VI, ¶ 1; the constitutionally-
mandated appropriations process, N.J. Const. art. VIII, § II, ¶
1
The bail bond and surety companies have not joined in this
appeal.
2 A-4353-16T1
2, N.J. Const. art. V, § 1, ¶ 15; and the separation of powers
doctrine, N.J. Const. art. III, ¶ 1.
Judge Paul Innes thoroughly and correctly addressed and
rejected each of plaintiffs' arguments in a comprehensive written
opinion issued on May 24, 2017. There is no need for this court
to address the issues further. We affirm for the reasons stated
in his opinion. We add only these brief comments.
We agree with Judge Innes that the Act preserves the
Legislature's power to determine the amounts that will be
appropriated to the various programs funded by the court fees. As
the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed, "[a] consistent line of
cases from our Court holds that the Appropriations Clause operates
to render purported dedications of monies as line items in
forthcoming appropriations acts as mere expressions of intent to
pay." Burgos v. State, 222 N.J. 175, 205 (2015). Thus, the Act
does not violate the Appropriations Clause.
Affirmed.
3 A-4353-16T1