The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that the Council on Local Mandates exceeded its constitutional authority by attempting to nullify a $25 surcharge on drunken driving convictions, holding that decisions about the assessment belong to the Legislature, not the Council.
In a unanimous opinion written by Associate Justice Michael Noriega, the Court affirmed lower court rulings rejecting a class-action lawsuit seeking refunds of the surcharge paid by DWI offenders.
“The Council is subject to judicial review, and it exceeded its constitutional authority in this instance,” Noriega wrote.
The dispute stems from a 2014 state law requiring municipal police vehicles primarily used for traffic stops to be equipped with mobile video recording systems. At the same time, the Legislature increased the DWI surcharge from $100 to $125, directing the additional $25 toward the cost of purchasing the cameras.
After Deptford Township challenged the mandate, the Council on Local Mandates ruled in 2016 that the camera requirement was an unconstitutional unfunded mandate because the surcharge generated insufficient revenue to cover the costs. The Council also declared the $25 surcharge “nugatory.”
The Supreme Court agreed that the council had authority to determine whether the camera mandate constituted an unfunded mandate, but said it went too far by attempting to invalidate the separate funding provision.
“We hold that once the Council determined that the MVRS statute was an unfunded mandate, its authority ended,” Noriega wrote. “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.”
The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the Council’s actions were immune from judicial review because the State Constitution describes its rulings as political rather than judicial determinations.
“That threshold question as to whether the Council acted within the scope of its authority is the standard province of the courts, not a non-justiciable political question,” the Supreme Court decision noted.
The ruling means motorists who paid the additional $25 surcharge will not receive refunds, and municipalities may continue collecting the assessment. The court did not disturb the council’s unchallenged determination that the police camera mandate was an unfunded mandate, leaving it to the legislature to decide whether and how to fund that requirement in the future.
The justices emphasized that any decision about the surcharge’s future rests with lawmakers, not the council.
“The authority to revise, repurpose, strike, or sever a funding provision lies with the legislature, not the council, and 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 that N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.1 was an unfunded mandate,” Noriega wrote in his decision by the state’s top court.
Beyond the immediate dispute, the decision establishes that while the Council on Local Mandates has the final word on whether a law constitutes an unfunded mandate, courts retain the authority to determine whether the Council has acted outside the constitutional and statutory limits of its powers.
The legislation was sponsored by five Democrats who no longer serve in the State Assembly: Paul Moriarty (D-Washington Township), Charles Mainor (D-Jersey City), Angel Fuentes (D-Camden), Gabriela Mosquera (D-Gloucester Township), and Pamela Lampitt (D-Cherry Hill). Only Moriarty, now a state senator, remains in the legislature.
The bill passed the Assembly, 48-24, and the Senate, 34-3.
