Background
In 2014, the New Jersey Legislature simultaneously enacted two related statutory provisions: a requirement that municipal police vehicles acquired after March 1, 2015 and primarily used for traffic stops be equipped with mobile video recording systems (MVRS), N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.1, and an amendment to the DWI statute, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(i), raising the DWI surcharge by $25 — from $100 to $125 — with the additional $25 earmarked to fund MVRS installation. In 2015, Deptford Township challenged the MVRS requirement before the Council on Local Mandates, arguing that the $25 surcharge covered only roughly six percent of actual installation costs, making the mandate effectively unfunded. Deptford did not challenge the legality of the surcharge itself.
In April 2016, the Council agreed that the MVRS statute was an unconstitutional unfunded mandate under Article VIII, Section 2, Paragraph 5(a) of the New Jersey Constitution. The Council then went a step further, declaring that its ruling rendered the $25 DWI surcharge “nugatory” — without legal effect. Despite that declaration, municipalities continued collecting the surcharge. In 2021, plaintiffs Rebecca Reed and Amanda Curry filed separate class actions against the State Treasurer and other officials, seeking a refund of all $25 surcharges collected after the Council’s ruling. The cases were consolidated, and the trial court dismissed the complaints. The Appellate Division affirmed.
The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification to resolve two questions: whether Council decisions are subject to judicial review, and whether the Council exceeded its authority by purporting to invalidate the DWI surcharge.
The Court’s Holding
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Noriega held that the Council on Local Mandates is subject to judicial review when it acts outside the scope of its constitutional authority, and that the Council did so here. The Court reasoned that the constitutional and statutory provisions shielding Council decisions from judicial review as “political determinations” — Article VIII, Section 2, Paragraph 5(b) and N.J.S.A. 52:13H-18 — protect only decisions made within the Council’s defined function of resolving unfunded mandate disputes. Whether the Council acted within that function in the first place is a question for the courts under separation-of-powers principles.
On the merits, the Court held that once the Council determined the MVRS statute was an unfunded mandate, its authority was exhausted. The $25 DWI surcharge was a separate funding mechanism, not a mandate imposed on municipalities, and it was not the subject of Deptford Township’s complaint. N.J.S.A. 52:13H-12(a) expressly limits Council rulings to the specific provision found to be an unfunded mandate and directs the Council to leave the remainder of the statute intact. By declaring the surcharge nugatory, the Council nullified a revenue provision that was neither a mandate nor before it — an action the statute plainly forbids.
The Court emphasized that the authority to revise, repurpose, or strike a funding provision belongs to the Legislature, not the Council. It is for the Legislature to decide what, if anything, to do with the $25 surcharge in light of the MVRS mandate’s expiration. The Appellate Division’s judgment affirming dismissal of the complaints was affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- Council on Local Mandates decisions are not categorically immune from judicial review; courts may examine whether the Council acted within its constitutional and statutory authority.
- The Council’s authority ends once it determines a provision is an unfunded mandate — it cannot go further and invalidate separate funding mechanisms that were not the subject of the dispute before it.
- A funding provision (like a DWI surcharge earmarked for a mandate) is not itself a mandate and therefore falls outside the Council’s jurisdiction.
- The $25 DWI surcharge remains legally valid and collectible; DWI defendants who paid it after the 2016 Council ruling are not entitled to refunds.
- Decisions about what to do with orphaned funding provisions — after an associated mandate is struck — rest exclusively with the Legislature.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the structural limits of the Council on Local Mandates, a body created by constitutional amendment in 1995 to police unfunded mandates on local government. By confirming that courts may review whether the Council has stayed within its lane — even while core unfunded-mandate determinations remain insulated as political decisions — the Court preserves a meaningful check on an entity that wields significant power over state-local fiscal relations. Municipalities, counties, and boards of education now have clearer guidance: a Council ruling striking a mandate does not automatically cascade to nullify related funding streams unless the Legislature acts.
The ruling also has immediate practical significance for DWI defendants in New Jersey. Plaintiffs had sought class-wide refunds of the $25 surcharge collected by municipalities across the state since 2016, a potentially large aggregate liability. By holding that the Council lacked authority to declare the surcharge nugatory, the Court extinguishes those refund claims and leaves the surcharge in effect, while signaling that any legislative response to the MVRS mandate’s expiration — including repealing or redirecting the $25 fee — remains the Legislature’s prerogative.