1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
742, 769, 466 P.3d 213 (2020) (parties lacked standing where constitutional provisions at issue did not apply to them). Article IV is clear that “[t]he judicial power” is “vested” in the “courts,” not private citizens. Const. art. 4, § 1. Accordingly, the courts have exclusive control over activities that preserve the judicial function. See, e.g., WSBA v. State, 125 Wn.2d 901, 909, 890 P.2d 1047 (1995) (“regulat[ing] court-related functions, including the administration of the Bar Association”); Juvenile Director, 87 Wn.2d at 245-46 (listing other inherent judicial powers). So, to the extent the inherent power to compel judicial funding exists, it necessarily inheres solely in the courts, as its very “purpose is to preserve the efficient and expeditious administration of Justice.” Juvenile Director, 87 Wn.2d at 245 (cleaned up). Furthermore, it is a fundamental separation-of-powers principle that the “core” functions and inherent powers of one branch “cannot be delegated” to another branch or entity. State v. Williams, 97 Wn. App. 257, 264, 983 P.2d 687 (1999). The Washington Supreme Court has held that “the inherent power of the judiciary to require payment of necessary funds for the efficient administration of justice”—the very power Plaintiffs seek to invoke—is nondelegable. Zylstra v. Piva, 85 Wn.2d 743, 749, 539 P.2d 823 (1975). “The court cannot . . . relinquish either its power or its obligation to keep its own house in order” through “its inherent power to control and administer its functions.”13 Id. at 748; cf. Port of That principle distinguishes this case from precedents permitting private citizens to raise separation-of-powers challenges to “an unconstitutional encroachment” on a branch’s powers. State v. Rice, 174 Wn.2d 884, 896, 279 P.3d 849 (2012). In those cases, the plaintiff was merely objecting to the encroachment. Here, Plaintiffs are improperly seeking to exercise the inherent judicial power, 13
MOTION TO DISMISS Case No. 21-2-06462-7 SEA 153411396
15
Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000
