Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto - Minnesota State Legislature

91. Thus, as in Sharood, ifthe province ofpassing appropriation bills is an
essentially legislative function, then the District Court has no room to intrude on that
legislative authority.90
92. The District Court in the instant case, has injected itselfinto the legislative
process, conducting legislative business. Likewise, it has injected itself into the executive
process conducting its business as to when it orders disbursing ofstate moneys without
an appropriation by law. It is making the policy decisions for the legislative and
executive branches when the court has no authority to do so.
93. The "political question" doctrine is grounded primarily in the separation of
powers. 91 Under this doctrine, the judicial department should not interfere in the exercise
by another department ofa discretion that is committed by a textually demonstrable
provision ofthe Constitution to the other department 92 or seek to resolve an issue for
which it lacks judicially discoverable and manageable standards. 93
94. The Attorney General's underlying petition to the District Court sought and
obtained the lower court's to determination ofwhat is and what is not a so-called "core
function" and if so, command the Commissioner to disburse state treasury moneys to
90 Schermer v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 721 N.W.2d 307,315 (Minn. 2006)
(separation ofpowers principles preclude courts from actions that interfere with
legislative functions).
91 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186,210(1962).
92 Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267,276 (2004). Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 518
(1969).
93 ld.
37