NJ Unfunded Mandate Council Did Not Have Authority to Void DWI Surcharge

A local council in New Jersey charged with monitoring unfunded mandates from the state exceeded its authority when it negated a motorist surcharge for driving while intoxicated (DWI) that was intended to cover the cost of new police equipment.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled last week that the Council on Local Mandates acted within its constitutional authority when it determined that a statute mandating that mobile video monitoring systems (MVMS) be installed on certain police vehicles was an unfunded mandate. However, the council went too far when it then invalidated a related $25 increase in the state’s $100 DWI surcharge after it determined that the $25 levy was inadequate to cover the costs of the video equipment.

Since 1996, the New Jersey Constitution has provided that any provision of law that is determined to be an unfunded mandate shall “cease to be mandatory in its effect and expire.” The legislature implemented the constitutional amendment through the Local Mandates Act, which authorizes the council to “resolve any dispute regarding whether a law constitutes an unfunded mandate.”

The Local Mandates Act specifies that a ruling of the council shall be “restricted to the specific provision of a law” that constitutes an unfunded mandate and shall, as far as possible, leave intact the remainder of a statute The council does not have the authority to determine whether the funding of any statute is adequate. The law also states that rulings of the council shall be political determinations not subject to judicial review.

In 2014, the legislature mandated that police vehicles acquired on or after March 1, 2015 and “primarily used for traffic stops shall be equipped with a mobile video recording system (MVRS)].” At the same time, the legislature amended a separate statute to increase the $100 DWI surcharge to $125. The amended DWI statute directs that the additional $25 be applied to “the cost of equipping police vehicles with MVRS.”

In 2015, Deptford Township challenged the MVRS mandate before the council, alleging that requiring the video systems amounted to an unfunded mandate in violation of the New Jersey Constitution and the law.

On April 20, 2016, the Council on Local Mandates determined that there was a significant disparity between the projected costs of the installation mandate and the funds made available through recovered DWI surcharges and concluded that the authorized funding was constitutionally inadequate. Therefore, the council deemed the MVRS statute unconstitutional as an unfunded mandate. The council then found that its determination rendered the DWI statute’s $25 surcharge “nugatory,” meaning invalid or without legal effect.

In 2021, Rebecca J. Reed and Amanda M. Curry filed identical but separate class actions after being subjected to the $25 DWI surcharge. The actions, filed against State Treasurer Elizabeth Muoio and other public officials, alleged that the collection of the $25 surcharge for all plaintiffs was unconstitutional and that municipalities unlawfully continued to collect the surcharge in contravention of the council’s determination. They asked that all the funds collected be returned to citizens. They further argued that the council’s decisions are political determinations not subject to judicial review.

State Treasurer Muoio moved to dismiss the complaints, arguing that the unconstitutionality of the MVRS mandate did not render the $25 surcharge invalid. Muoio also argued that as a funding source, the $25 surcharge could not be an “unfunded mandate” and was therefore not subject to the council’s review.

The trial court sided with Muoio and dismissed the complaints. The Appellate Division affirmed.Now the Supreme Court has upheld those rulings.

The Appellate Division rejected plaintiffs’ argument that all council decisions are immune from judicial review, even when the council exceeds its authority. The court explained that the protections the New Jersey Constitution and the unfunded mandates law apply only to the council’s core function — determining whether a law is an unfunded mandate. If the council acts outside that function, such as by invalidating a statute or provision beyond its authority, the court explained, judicial review is appropriate.

The state did not challenge and the high court did not review the council’s determination that the MVRS statute is an unfunded mandate. However, once the council made that determination, its authority ended. The council was not empowered to go further and invalidate the $25 surcharge itself, which was a separate funding mechanism and not the subject of the unfunded mandate complaint.

It is the prerogative of the legislature to decide what, if anything, should be done with the $25 surcharge in the wake of the council’s determination is an unfunded mandate, the court added.