Renner v. Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh Co. – Pa. SCt – July 21, 2020
Majority - http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-110-2019mo%20-%20104488471105718744.pdf?cb=1
Concurring - http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-110-2019co%20-%20104488471105755702.pdf?cb=1
Held: Application of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act to the judicial branch of Pennsylvania’s tripartite form of government violates separation of powers principles..
From the opinion
The separation of powers doctrine is essential to our tripartite governmental framework and is the cornerstone of judicial independence. It is inherent in the Pennsylvania Constitution and makes manifest that the three branches of government are co-equal and independent, and divides power accordingly. The governing structure of our Commonwealth, like the federal government, is divided into three equal branches, the legislative, see Pa. Const. art II, § 1 (“The legislative power of this Commonwealth shall be vested in a General Assembly . . . .”); the executive, see Pa. Const. art. IV, § 2 (“The supreme executive power shall be vested in the Governor . . . .”); and the judicial, see Pa. Const. art. V, § 1 (“The judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a unified judicial system . . . .”).
The rationale underlying this separation of powers is that it prevents one branch of government from exercising, infringing upon, or usurping the powers of the other two branches. Thus, to “avert the danger inherent in the concentration of power in any single branch or body,” no branch may exercise the functions delegated to another branch. . . . The prohibition on one branch of government encroaching upon a sister branch’s powers is, in turn, related to the system of checks and balances, which prevents one branch from acting unchecked. . . . For checks and balances to properly work, each branch must be kept from controlling or coercing the other. Insuring that each branch is co-equal and independent is the foundation of the separation of powers doctrine, and the avoidance of the concentration of governmental powers in one branch is essential to our freedom and liberty.
In our Commonwealth, the roots of the separation of powers doctrine run deep. The delineation of the three branches of government, each with distinct and independent powers, has been inherent in the structure of Pennsylvania’s government since its genesis ― the constitutional convention of 1776. Indeed for most of our Commonwealth’s history, our Court has vigorously maintained separation of the powers of the branches, primarily relying on Article V, Section 1.
Article V, Section 10(a) provides: The Supreme Court shall exercise general supervisory and administrative authority over all the courts and justices of the peace, including authority to temporarily assign judges and justices of the peace from one court or district to another as it deems appropriate.
In the 1968 Constitution, Article V, Section 10(a) was added, granting to the Supreme Court general supervisory and administrative authority over the judicial branch. It provides that the “Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure and the conduct of all courts, justices of the peace and all officers serving process or enforcing orders, judgments or decrees of any court or justice of the peace, including the power to provide for assignment and reassignment of classes of actions or classes of appeals among the several courts as the needs of justice shall require, and for admission to the bar and to practice law, and the administration of all courts and supervision of all officers of the Judicial Branch, if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant, nor affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or justice of the peace, nor suspend nor alter any statute of limitation or repose. All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions. . . . ”
