Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto - Minnesota State Legislature

nonpayment...,,113 it is, nevertheless, a policy decision for the legislature to make - to
fund in whole, or in part, or not at all. Here, the district court must not fill the present
void and must play no part in interfering with the legislature's appropriation power.
120. To the extent the Supremacy Clause prevails in these circumstances the
Commissioner is legally obligated to spend the funds, but narrowly construed within his
own right and certainly without the necessity of any District Court order.
121. In summary, there are certain circumstances that the Commissioner may
disburse state funds without an annual appropriation by law. In all these instances, a court
order is not required. Issuing such an order is an improper advisory opinion. 114 Without a
justiciable controversy involving definite and concrete assertions ofrights on established
f: h I h · . d" 115
acts t e ower court as no Juns lchon.
122. The only time the Court would have jurisdiction at the end ofthe 2011
fiscal biennium is ifthe Commissioner failed to disburse state funds in the categories
mentioned above. Absence of an annual legislative appropriation, alone, is insufficient to
confer subject matter jurisdiction to the Court.
113 d
L . at 3, App. 243.
114 See Izaak Walton League ofAmerica Endowment, Inc. v. State Dep't ofNatural Res.,
252 N.W.2d 852, 854 (Minn.1977).
115 St. Paul Area Chamber ofCommerce v. Marzitelli, 258 N.W.2d 585,587-88 (Minn.
1977).
48