For Publication

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
 LIMETREE BAY TERMINALS, LLC,                          ) S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
    Appellant/Defendant,                               ) Re: Super. Ct. Civ. No. 301/2022 (STX)
                                                       )
 v.                                                    )
                                                       )
 VINCENT LIGER,                                        )
     Appellee/Plaintiff.                               )
                                                       )

                    On Appeal from the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands
                                    Division of St. Croix
                          Superior Court Judge: Hon. Jomo Meade

                                    Argued: May 14, 2024
                                    Filed: August 2, 2024

                                      Cite as: 

BEFORE:        RHYS S. HODGE, Chief Justice; IVE ARLINGTON SWAN, Associate
               Justice; and HAROLD W.L. WILLOCKS, Associate Justice.

APPEARANCES:

Carl A. Beckstedt III, Esq.
Beckstedt & Kuczynski LLP
St. Croix, U.S.V.I.
        Attorney for Appellant,

Warren T. Burns, Esq. (argued)
Burns Charest LLP
Dallas, Texas

C. Jacob Gower, Esq.
Gower Legal LLC
New Orleans, Louisiana
       Attorneys for Appellee,

Ian S.A. Clement, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
       Attorney for Amicus Curiae Government of the Virgin Islands.
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger          

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 2 of 28

                                  OPINION OF THE COURT
HODGE, Chief Justice.

¶1      Appellant Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC (“Limetree”), appeals from the Superior Court’s

June 7, 2023 order granting a motion for trial preference filed by Appellee Vincent Liger. For the

reasons that follow, we reverse.

                                        I. BACKGROUND

¶2      Liger filed a complaint against Limetree in the Superior Court on August 5, 2022, asserting

a cause of action for private nuisance arising out of an alleged “flaring” incident at the oil refinery

operated by Limetree that Liger asserts caused oil and other pollutants to land on his residential

property. After numerous proceedings not relevant to this interlocutory appeal, Liger filed a

“Motion for Preferential Trial Setting” on January 30, 2023, which asserted that he is entitled to a

trial within 180 days because he is over 70 years old and entitled to a mandatory calendar

preference pursuant to title 5, section 31(b) of the Virgin Islands Code (hereafter the “mandatory

preference statute”). Limetree opposed the motion on grounds that the mandatory preference

statute violates both the separation of powers principles inherent in the Revised Organic Act of

1954 as well as the Equal Protection Clause codified in the Virgin Islands Bill of Rights.

Specifically, Limetree argued that (1) the statutory mandate that a trial must occur within 180 days

infringed on the authority of the individual judges of the Superior Court to manage their docket as

well as that of the Judicial Branch to establish the rules of practice and procedure to govern

proceedings in the courts of the Virgin Islands; and (2) the preference statute violates equal

protection guarantees by automatically providing this right to every litigant who is over 70 years

of age, without regard to any factor besides age. Liger filed a reply to the opposition on February

23, 2023, which defended the constitutionality of the preference statute.
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger          

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 3 of 28

¶3      The Superior Court held a hearing on the preference motion and other matters on April 12,

2023, where it took the matter under advisement. On June 7, 2023, the Superior Court granted the

preference motion and set the trial to commence on July 31. 2023, rejecting all of Limetree’s

constitutional arguments. Limetree filed an emergency motion to stay the case and to certify the

June 7, 2023 order to this Court pursuant to title 4, section 33(c), which Liger opposed on July 8,

2023. The Superior Court granted the certification motion in an August 17, 2023 order, but

purported to limit the certification only to one of the constitutional questions:

                Whether subsection (b)(4) of 5 V.I.C. § 31, which restricts when the Court
        must set a preference trial for an elderly party and further restricts the number and
        length of continuances to be granted, is unconstitutional under the Virgin Islands
        Revised Organic Act of 1954 (the Act) because it violates the separation of powers
        principle?

Limetree filed a petition for permission to appeal with this Court on August 28, 2023, but requested

that we consider not just the separation of powers question, but also its equal protection challenge.

Liger opposed the petition, in part, on the ground that the Superior Court had not certified the

equal protection question for interlocutory appeal.

¶4      On November 9, 2023, this Court granted the petition for permission to appeal with respect

to both the separation of powers and equal protection issues. As this Court explained,

        the plain language of section 33(c) does not provide for certification of questions,
        but rather certification of orders. While it is certainly useful for the Superior Court
        to specify the precise questions addressed in an order that it believes meets the
        standard for discretionary review under section 33(c), “this Court is not limited
        solely to the questions as phrased by the Superior Court in its certification order,
        but may consider other legal questions that are fairly related to or intertwined with
        the questions so certified.” Edward v. GEC, LLC, 

 (V.I. 2017).
        Because the equal protection claim was adjudicated on the merits in the June 7,
        2023 order, we exercise our discretion to consider that issue as part of this appeal
        as well, and consequently grant the petition.

Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger, S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045, 

, at *1 (V.I.
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger         

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 4 of 28

Nov. 9, 2023) (unpublished). Consistent with this decision, this Court reformulated the issues on

appeal as follows:

                Whether subsection (b)(4) of 5 V.I.C. § 31, which restricts when the Court
        must set a preference trial for an elderly party and further restricts the number and
        length of continuances to be granted, is unconstitutional under the Virgin Islands
        Revised Organic Act of 1954 (the Act) because it violates the separation of powers
        principle or its guarantees of equal protection?

Id. at *2. This Court subsequently issued a scheduling order establishing briefing deadlines, but

noted that it appeared Limetree had not complied with Rule 22(n) of the Virgin Islands Rules of

Appellate Procedure, which provides that

        It shall be the duty of a party who draws in question the constitutionality of any
        Virgin Islands statute in any proceeding in the Supreme Court to which the
        Government of the Virgin Islands, or any agency thereof, or any officer or
        employee thereof, as such officer or employee, is not a party, upon the filing of the
        record, or as soon thereafter as the question is raised in the Supreme Court, to give
        immediate notice in writing to the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands of the
        existence of said question.

Limetree subsequently provided the Attorney General with the notice required by Appellate Rule

22(n), and on January 12, 2024, the Attorney General advised this Court of the Government’s

desire to appear as amicus curiae in this case to address the constitutionality of the mandatory

preference statute. Ultimately, the Government filed an amicus curiae brief agreeing with Limetree

that the mandatory preference statute is unconstitutional on both separation of powers and equal

protection grounds.

                                         II. DISCUSSION

                                 A. Jurisdiction and Legal Standard

¶5       “Whenever [a] Superior Court judge, in making a civil action or order not otherwise

appealable . . . is of the opinion that the order involves a controlling question of law as to which

there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger          

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 5 of 28

may materially advance the ultimate termination of litigation, the judge shall so state in the order

and “[t]he Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal

to be taken from the order, if application is made to it within ten days after entry of the order.” 4

V.I.C. § 33(c). Since the Superior Court made such a certification in its August 17, 2023 order,

and Limetree timely filed its petition on August 28, 2023, this Court possesses jurisdiction over

this appeal by permission, based on this Court’s November 9, 2023 order granting the petition.1

Island Tile & Marble, LLC v. Bertrand, 

 (V.I. 2012).

¶6      This Court exercises plenary review of the Superior Court's application of law. Allen v.

HOVENSA, L.L.C., 

 (V.I. 2013) (citing St. Thomas–St. John Bd. of Elections v.

Daniel, 

 (V.I. 2007)). Because this appeal comes before this Court only because

the Superior Court certified the June 7, 2023 order for a discretionary appeal, this Court limits its

inquiry solely to controlling questions of law—as is provided in the statute authorizing such an

interlocutory appeal—and accepts, solely for the purposes of this appeal by permission, the facts

and circumstances as they were found by the Superior Court. Edward, 

.

                    B. Constitutionality of the Mandatory Preference Statute

¶7      On August 16, 2021, the Legislature enacted Act No. 8468, titled “An Act amending title

5 Virgin Islands Code, subtitle 1, part 1, chapter 3 to grant seniors and the terminally ill preference

in civil actions.” Act No. 8468 amended title 5, section 31(b) of the Virgin Islands Code to add the

following new language to codify this preference:

        (b) Motion for preference; elderly; medical reasons; time of trial
               (1) A party to a civil action who is over 70 years of age or older may petition
        the court for a preference, which the court shall grant if it finds that the party has a

1
 Because the ten-day deadline to file a petition for permission to appeal from the August 17, 2023
order fell on Sunday, August 27, 2023, the time to file the petition automatically extended to
Monday, August 28, 2023. See V.I. R. APP. P. 16(b); 1 V.I.C. § 171(c).
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger          

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 6 of 28

        substantial interest in the action as a whole.
                (2) A party to a civil action who is over 65 years of age or older may petition
        the court for a preference, which the court shall grant if the court makes both of the
        following findings:
                         (A) The party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole; and
                         (B) The health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to
                prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation.
                (3) In its discretion, the court may also grant a motion for preference that is
        accompanied by clear and convincing medical documentation that concludes that
        the movant, who is a party, suffers from an illness or condition raising substantial
        medical doubt of survival of that party beyond six months, and that satisfies the
        court that the interests of justice will be served by granting the preference.
                (4) Upon the granting of such a motion for preference for an elderly party,
        the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 180 days from that date that the
        elderly party moves for preference. There shall be no continuance beyond 180 days
        from the granting of the motion for preference except for physical disability of a
        party or a party's attorney, or upon a showing of good cause stated in the record.
        Any continuance shall be for no more than 30 days and no more than one
        continuance for physical disability may be granted to any party.
                (5) Upon the granting of such a motion for preference for a terminally ill
        party, the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 90 days from that date
        that the terminally ill party moves for preference and there shall be no continuance
        beyond 90 days from the granting of the motion for preference except for a physical
        disability of a party or a party's attorney, or upon a showing of good cause stated in
        the record. Any continuance shall be for no more than 30 days and no more than
        one continuance for physical disability may be granted to any party.
                (6) Unless the court otherwise orders:
                         (A) A party may file and serve a motion for preference supported by
                a declaration of the moving party that all essential parties have been served
                with process or have appeared.
                         (B) At any time during the pendency of the action, a party who
                reaches 70 years of age may file and serve a motion for preference.
                         (C) At any time during the pendency of the action, a party who is
                diagnosed as terminally ill with less than six (6) months to live may file and
                serve a motion for preference.

The amended section 31(b) thus creates three statutory preferences: a mandatory preference

codified in section 31(b)(1) for all parties in a civil action who are over 70 years of age; a

discretionary preference codified in section 31(b)(2) permitting a party over 65 years old whose

health necessitates a preference to avoid impairing the party’s interest to request a preference; and

a discretionary preference codified in section 31(b)(3) permitting a party, regardless of age, to
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger          

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 7 of 28

request a preference upon a showing that the party is not likely to survive beyond six months.

¶8      In this case, Liger moved for—and the Superior Court granted—the mandatory preference

provided for in section 31(b)(1), based solely on him being 70 years of age or older. Liger did not

request, nor did the Superior Court grant, a preference pursuant to sections 31(b)(2) or 31(b)(3).

As such, only the constitutionality of section 31(b)(1) is at issue in this case.2

¶9      Limetree asserts that section 31(b)(1) violates the separation of powers and equal


2
   As noted earlier, the only questions before this Court are whether the mandatory preference
statute “is unconstitutional under the Virgin Islands Revised Organic Act of 1954 (the Act) because
it violates the separation of powers principle or its guarantees of equal protection?” Limetree Bay
Terminals, 

, at *2. While Limetree has not challenged the constitutionality of
the mandatory preference statute pursuant to any provision of the United States Constitution, it has
nevertheless brought a constitutional challenge because the Revised Organic Act serves as the de
facto territorial constitution of the Virgin Islands. See Balboni, 70 V.I. at 1088-89.
         The parties and the Superior Court in this case all correctly treat Limetree’s claim as a
constitutional challenge. However, in another case, the Superior Court recently described a
challenge to a Virgin Islands statute brought pursuant to the Revised Organic Act as a claim that
the statute is “inorganic.” See Bryan v. V.I. Gov’t Hosp., 2021 VI Super 52U ¶¶ 10, 13. The
Supreme Court of Guam has long used the term “inorganic” to describe a Guam statute found
violative of the Organic Act of Guam, see, e.g., In re Leon Guerrero, 

; In re
Gutierrez, 

. We decline to adopt this term because, as this Court recognized in
Balboni, a charter of government need not bear the name “constitution” to function as a
constitution. In addition to needlessly distinguishing between territorial organic acts and territorial
constitutions “without any historical or legal basis,” Ciolli, 58 IDAHO L. REV. at 246, the word
“inorganic” is a malapropism in this context because the word “organic” is being used as the
adjective form of the noun “organization.” See People v. Clark, 

 (V.I. Super. Ct.
2010) (“An organized territory has an organic act—an act of Congress that establishes its
government.”). Under traditional rules of English usage and grammar, describing laws as
“inorganic” would not mean that these are “laws that are inconsistent with the Organic Act,” Leon
Guerrero, 

 (Carbullido, J., concurring); rather, it literally means that the laws
are not organized. But “not organized” and its variant “unorganized” are themselves terms of art
that simply mean that Congress has not authorized a territory’s government; importantly, it does
not mean that the territorial government or the laws it enacted without Congress’s approval are
illegal or void. See Jon. M. Van Dyke, The Evolving Legal Relationship Between the United States
and its Affiliated U.S.-Flag Islands, 14 U. HAW. L. REV. 445, 450 (1992) (noting that American
Samoa is not an organized territory even though it operates a civil government with an elected
governor and elected legislature). Therefore, we will continue our practice of using the word
“unconstitutional” to refer to statutes, rules, or other authorities which are inconsistent with either
the federal constitution or our de facto territorial constitution, the Revised Organic Act.
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger          

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 8 of 28

protection guarantees of the Revised Organic Act of 1954. As this Court recently explained,

        “[T]he Revised Organic Act serves as the de facto constitution for the Virgin
        Islands,” Bryan v. Fawkes, 

 (V.I. 2014), and is interpreted by this
        Court in the same manner as the court of last resort of a state interprets its own state
        constitution. See Balboni v. Ranger Am. of the V.I., Inc., 

, 1089-92 (V.I.
        2019); see also Puerto Rico v. Rubert Hermanos, Inc., 

 (1940);
        Anthony M. Ciolli, Territorial Constitutional Law, 58 IDAHO L. REV. 206, 240-47
        (2022) (summarizing historical and contemporary interpretations of territorial
        organic acts and treatment as equivalents to state constitutions).

Payne v. 35th Legislature of the V.I., 

. Because we ultimately agree with Limetree

and the Government that the mandatory preference statute infringes on the separation of powers,

we limit our analysis solely to that question.

    1. Separation of Powers

¶ 10    The Revised Organic Act “divides the power to govern the territory between a legislative

branch, 

, an executive branch, 

 § 1591, and a judicial branch, id. § 1611,

reflecting that Congress implicitly incorporated the principle of separation of powers into the law

of the territory.” Gerace v. Bentley, 

 (V.I. 2016) (quoting Kendall v. Russell, 

 (3d Cir. 2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted). As such, the Revised Organic

Act “established a system of separation of powers within [the] branches, with executive functions

vested in the Executive Branch, legislative functions vested in the Legislative Branch, and judicial

functions vested in the Judicial Branch.” Balboni, 70 V.I. at 1084 (citing Kendall, 

).

“Thus, unless otherwise expressly provided or incidental to the powers conferred, the Legislature

cannot exercise either executive or judicial power; the executive cannot exercise either legislative

or judicial power; [and] the judiciary cannot exercise either executive or legislative power.” Bryan,

 (quoting Springer v. Gov't of the Philippine Islands, 

, 201–02 (1928))

(internal quotation marks omitted).
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger         

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 9 of 28

¶ 11    The Revised Organic Act expressly vests the Legislature with the “legislative power and

authority of the Virgin Islands,” 

, which it may exercise with respect to “all

rightful subjects of legislation not inconsistent with [the Revised Organic Act] or the laws of the

United States made applicable to the Virgin Islands.” 

(a). “This is consistent with

the well-established principle that the power to make the law is the quintessential legislative

power.” Save Coral Bay, Inc. v. Bryan, 

, 510-11 (collecting cases).

¶ 12    But the Revised Organic Act itself places structural limits on the authority of the

Legislature to make law, such as providing that any such legislation cannot be inconsistent with

other provisions of the Revised Organic Act. Significantly, the Revised Organic Act—like many

state constitutions3—expressly vests certain legislative powers exclusively or concurrently with

other entities, including other branches of government. Of relevance to this case, section 21(c) of

the Revised Organic Act provides that “[t]he rules governing the practice and procedure of the

courts established by local law . . . shall be governed by local law or the rules promulgated by

those courts.” 

(c). “[T]his provision, by its own terms, vests both the Virgin

Islands Judiciary and the Virgin Islands Legislature with authority to promulgate procedural rules,

while only permitting the Legislature to establish substantive rules.” Gerace, 

(collecting cases). As this Court recently explained,

        The authority of this Court to create procedural rules and substantive law is
        concurrent with the Legislature. See 

(c); Banks v. Int'l Rental &
        Leasing Corp., 

 (V.I. 2011). However, the allocation of authority
        between this Court and the Legislature differs depending on whether the law
        enacted is procedural or substantive. If this Court and the Legislature enact

3
  See, e.g., Supreme Court of Va. v. Consumers Union of the U.S., Inc., 

 (1980)
(characterizing the authority of the Supreme Court of Virginia to establish the Virginia Code of
Professional Responsibility as a legislative power rather than a judicial power, even though it is
exercised by the judicial branch); see also Flannery v. Hodge, No. 22-1508, 

, at
*2 (3d Cir. Jan. 11, 2023) (unpublished).
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger           

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 10 of 28

        inconsistent or conflicting procedural laws, the procedural rule adopted by this
        Court will always prevail over a procedural statute enacted by the Legislature.
        Gerace v. Bentley, 

 (V.I. 2016). But if this Court were to establish
        substantive law—such as through exercising its inherent authority to create
        common law—a doctrine of law created by this Court must ultimately yield to the
        substantive statutes adopted by the Legislature. In re L.O.F., 

, 661 n.6
        (V.I. 2015).

World Fresh Market, LLC v. Palermo, 

, 462 (V.I. 2021).

¶ 13    In other words, in the Virgin Islands—like other states and territories where a constitution

or organic act vests similar concurrent authority—“conflicts between rules promulgated by the

judiciary and rules promulgated by the legislature are resolved in favor of the judiciary” if the rules

are procedural, while conflicts are resolved in favor of the Legislature if the statute it enacted

creates substantive law. Gerace, 

; see also Seisinger v. Siebel, 

, 486-

487 (Ariz. 2009) (“Although we have occasionally said that procedural rulemaking power is vested

‘exclusively’ in this Court, this statement is in some respects an oversimplification. . . . [I]t is more

accurate to say that the legislature and this Court both have rulemaking power, but that in the event

of irreconcilable conflict between a procedural statute and a rule, the rule prevails.”); Hickson v.

State, 

 (Ark. 1994) (“Statutes are given deference only to the extent that they

are compatible with our rules, and conflicts which compromise these rules are resolved with our

rules remaining supreme.” (citing State v. Sypult, 

 (Ark. 1990)); State v.

Griffith, 

 (Idaho 1975) (“[A]s part of the rule-making power possessed by this

Court, . . . the Court may by rule . . . make inapplicable procedural statutes which conflict with our

present court system.” (citations omitted)); Winsberry v. Salisbury, 

 (N.J. 1950)

(“We therefore conclude that the rule-making power of the Supreme Court is not subject to

overriding legislation, but that it is confined to practice, procedure, and administration as such.”);

Waples v. Yi, 

 (Wash. 2010) (“If a statute and a court rule cannot be harmonized,
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger          

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 11 of 28

the court rule will generally prevail in procedural matters and the statute in substantive matters.”).

Applying this standard, this Court previously determined that a statute providing for the

apportionment of fault is substantive and must therefore control over any contrary rules or

procedures adopted by the Judicial Branch, see Palermo, 74 V.I. at 462, but that a statute providing

for the exclusion of settlement evidence was procedural and therefore could not override Rule 408

of the Virgin Islands Rules of Evidence, which governed the same subject, see id. at 467-68.

¶ 14    Limetree asserts that the mandatory preference statute violates the separation of powers

principles of the Revised Organic Act. According to Limetree, the mandatory preference statute

does not create a substantive right but rather attempts to govern court procedures in a manner

inconsistent with both the inherent authority of courts to manage their own dockets as well as

numerous provisions of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rules 6, 6-3, 16,

and 26. The Government agrees, also arguing in its amicus curiae brief that the mandatory

preference statute is procedural rather than substantive and that it both conflicts with the Virgin

Islands Rules of Civil Procedure and infringes upon the inherent authority of individual judicial

officers. Liger, however, contends that the Superior Court correctly characterized the mandatory

preference statute as substantive law.

    2. The Mandatory Preference Statute is Procedural Rather Than Substantive

¶ 15    As this Court explained in one of its earliest separation of powers cases,

        A procedural rule regulates the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties
        recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for
        disregard or infraction of them. A substantive rule of law, on the other hand, creates
        and defines the rights, duties, and obligations that are subsequently administered
        by procedural rules of law. While a procedural rule may affect a substantive right,
        any such effect must be incidental and may not materially modify a right granted
        by the substantive rule of law.

Gov’t of the V.I. v. Durant, 

 (V.I. 2008) (internal citations and quotation marks
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger          

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 12 of 28

omitted). In its June 7, 2023 order, the Superior Court stated that the mandatory preference statute

“is substantive law within the authority of the legislature,” J.A. 17, citing to no legal authority to

support that holding other than the decision of another Superior Court judge in In re Refinery

Workers Toxic Tort Litig., 

 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2022). The Refinery Workers court,

however, did not analyze this question: it expressly found that in that case the “[d]efendants

conceded that these provisions—which mandate the court to grant a trial preference where the

plaintiff is 70 or more years of age and has a substantial interest in the litigation—constitute

substantive law.” Id. at 208. Rather, the defendants in that case only challenged, on separation of

powers grounds, the provision of the mandatory preference statute requiring that trial occur within

180 days. In this posture, in addition to being entirely non-binding,4 the Refinery Workers court

never analyzed the constitutionality of the trial preference itself, but only its implementation

through the 180-day trial deadline.

¶ 16    Here, of course, Limetree challenges the constitutionality of all aspects of the entire

mandatory preference statute, and not only the 180-day trial provision. Limetree expressly

challenges what the defendants in the Refinery Workers case had conceded, arguing that the

mandatory preference statute violates the separation of powers by mandating that a court shall

grant a trial preference whenever requested by a party to a civil action who is over 70 years of age,

effectively compelling a specific result without giving the court any discretion whatsoever to deny

it.

¶ 17    Perhaps recognizing the inapplicability of the Refinery Workers decision to this case, Liger



4
 As we have repeatedly instructed, “the decision of a single Superior Court judge is not binding
precedent on other Superior Court judges,” let alone a binding precedent for this Court. In re Q.G.,

, 661 n.8 (V.I. 2014).
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger           

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 13 of 28

relies on the decision in Swaithes v. Superior Court, 

 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989), where

the California Court of Appeal characterized a preference statute enacted by the California

Legislature as substantive. But the Swaithes decision is also wholly inapposite to this matter.

While Liger correctly notes that the Swaithes court described the California preference statute as

“a substantive public policy concern,” 

, the court did not engage in any legal

analysis to arrive at that conclusion, let alone explain how the statute is substantive rather than

procedural. But there is a reason for that: the California Supreme Court has interpreted the

California Constitution as providing considerably narrower separation of powers guarantees than

the United States Constitution or most state constitutions, to the point where the distinction

between substance and procedure is largely irrelevant. As one set of scholars recently explained,

“whereas the Federal Constitution imposes prohibitions and grants only limited powers, the

California Constitution concentrates power in the legislature and is not designed to ‘balance’

power among the branches of government.” David A. Carillo & Danny Y. Chou, California

Constitutional Law: Separation of Powers, 

, 668 (2011). Unlike other state

legislatures, “[t]he California Legislature possesses plenary lawmaking power except as

specifically limited by the California Constitution.”5 

 (emphasis added).


5
  This, of course, is different from how the separation of powers operates in much of the rest of
the United States, including the Virgin Islands. For instance, the California Supreme Court has
held that the promulgation of the rules of evidence is a power that belongs to the California
Legislature rather than the courts of California, see Superior Court v. County of Mendocino, 

 (Cal. 1996), and that the California Legislature could even establish the rules and
regulations governing the admission of attorneys to the California Bar. See Brydonjack v. State
Bar of Cal., 

 (Cal. 1929) (explaining that unlike elsewhere in the United States,
“the power of the Legislature to impose reasonable restrictions upon the practice of the law has
been recognized in this state almost from the inception of statehood” and that “[t]he right to
practice law . . . is the mere creature of the statute . . . subject to the control of the Legislature.”)
(quoting Cohen v. Wright, 

 (1863)). In fact, the California Supreme Court has even
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger          

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 14 of 28

¶ 18    But even more significantly, the result and reasoning of the Swaithes case—which had

been decided by California’s intermediate appellate court—has recently been called into question

because of more recent decisions of the Supreme Court of California. In People v. Engram, 

 (Cal. 2010), the California Supreme Court declined to enforce a different mandatory

preference statute enacted by the California Legislature that required that all criminal cases receive

calendar preference over all civil cases, holding that the California Legislature could not

“establish[] an absolute or inflexible rule mandating such precedence under all circumstances or

in total abrogation of a trial court’s ultimate control or discretion over the order in which the cases

pending before it should be considered.” Thus, even California has determined that the plenary

and largely unrestricted power of the California Legislature does not extend to enacting legislation

“totally supplanting a court’s discretion to control the order of business before it.” 

.

¶ 19    As noted earlier, under Virgin Islands law “[a] substantive rule of law . . . creates and

defines the rights, duties, and obligations that are subsequently administered by procedural rules

of law.” Durant, 

. Moreover, “a procedural rule may affect a substantive right”

without being substantive itself, so long as the procedural rule does “not materially modify a right

granted by the substantive rule of law.” 

 But while “[t]he distinction between a procedural rule

and a substantive law is not always easily discernable,” Refinery Workers, 75 V.I. at 205, some

are certainly more discernable than others. As the Supreme Court of Florida recently explained,

        Of course, statutes at times may not appear to fall exclusively into either a
        procedural or substantive classification. We have held that where a statute contains
        some procedural aspects, but those provisions are so intimately intertwined with
        the substantive rights created by the statute, that statute will not impermissibly

admonished litigants not to rely on separation of powers decisions applying the United States
Constitution because “the implicit assumption that the separation of powers embodied in the
federal Constitution is equivalent to the separation of powers clause of the California Constitution”
is simply wrong. Marine Forests Soc'y v. Cal. Coastal Comm'n, 

 (Cal. 2005).
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger          

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 15 of 28

        intrude on the practice and procedure of the courts in a constitutional sense, causing
        a constitutional challenge to fail. If a statute is clearly substantive and operates in
        an area of legitimate legislative concern, this Court will not hold that it constitutes
        an unconstitutional encroachment on the judicial branch. However, where a statute
        does not basically convey substantive rights, the procedural aspects of the statute
        cannot be deemed “incidental,” and that statute is unconstitutional. Moreover,
        where this Court has promulgated rules that relate to practice and procedure, and a
        statute provides a contrary practice or procedure, the statute is unconstitutional to
        the extent of the conflict. Finally, where a statute has some substantive aspects, but
        the procedural requirements of the statute conflict with or interfere with the
        procedural mechanisms of the court system, those requirements are
        unconstitutional.

Massey v. David, 

 (Fla. 2008). See also Seisinger, 

 (explaining

that “[a]lthough we maintain plenary power over procedural rules, we do not believe that power

precludes the legislature from addressing what it believes to be a serious substantive problem . . .

through statutory enactment,” and observing that such an enactment may “properly [be] viewed as

a modification of th[e] substantive common law, not merely as a change in procedure”); State v.

Smith, 

 (Wash. 1974) (“Substantive law prescribes norms for societal conduct

and punishments for violations thereof. It thus creates, defines, and regulates primary rights. In

contrast, practice and procedure pertain to the essentially mechanical operations of the courts by

which substantive law, rights, and remedies are effectuated.”).

¶ 20    Applying this standard, we agree with Limetree and the Government that the section 31(b)

mandatory preference statute establishes a procedural rule rather than a substantive right. Section

31(b) establishes a mandatory deadline by which an affected case must go to trial; it does not create

the right to the trial itself. The right to a trial predates section 31(b), and stems from both the

United States Constitution and the Revised Organic Act. As such, section 31(b) merely effectuates

the constitutional right to a trial by directing the Superior Court to provide the trial within 180 days

of a request being made by a litigant who is 70 years of age or older. This, of course, is the
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger          

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 16 of 28

hallmark of a procedural rule.

¶ 21    Notably, the arguments in Liger’s own brief support this construction: he asserts that the

Revised Organic Act “guarantee[s] the fundamental rights that all Virgin Islands enjoy, as

enshrined in Section 3 of the Revised Organic Act, such as the right to due process, the equal

protection of the laws, the right to a jury in a civil case, and the right to petition the government

for a redress of grievances,” and that “Act 8468 is designed to vindicate these Section 3 rights.”

(Appellee’s Br. 8.) As noted above, the quintessential characteristic of a procedural statute is one

that simply vindicates a substantive right codified elsewhere. If, as Liger asserts, the purpose of

the mandatory preference statute is simply to implement other rights such as the right to a jury trial

or to due process, then the mandatory preference statute must necessarily be procedural rather than

substantive.6 Durant, 

.

¶ 22    The extensive legislative history cited by the parties and the Government also reflects that

the Legislature did not intend to enact the mandatory preference statute to create a substantive

right, but to control the internal affairs of the Judicial Branch. Senator Kurt A. Vialet stated that

“cases are not flowing through the system the way that they should” and that “it is our job to pass

[the Act] and send a message that this body is not pleased with what is presently taking place.”


6
  At oral argument, Liger’s counsel noted that the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution likewise implements other rights and has not been described as procedural. What
Liger does not recognize, however, is that whether the Sixth Amendment establishes a substantive
or procedural right is of only academic interest because all parts of the United States Constitution
constitute “the supreme law of the land” that must always be followed. See U.S. CONST. art VI cl.
2; see also Bradford R. Clark, Unitary Judicial Review, 72 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 319, 319 (2003)
(“[J]udicial review is a unitary doctrine under the Supremacy Clause that requires courts to treat
all parts of the Constitution as ‘the supreme Law of the Land’ and to disregard both state and
federal law to the contrary.” (citation omitted)). That, of course, is not true of ordinary statutes,
which must be disregarded if violative of a higher authority such as a constitution – such as, for
instance, when a legislature enacts a procedural statute that infringes on the constitutional authority
of the judiciary.
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger          

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 17 of 28

One of the co-sponsors, Senator Janelle K. Sarauw, emphasized the large backlog of cases in the

Superior Court as a reason to enact the legislation. Senator Milton E. Potter even openly

acknowledged the procedural nature of the statute, stating that “the judiciary has the ultimate say

as to how it chooses to manage its docket, but if nothing else, this bill will send a message that the

Legislative branch is concerned [that] the docket is not moving as swiftly as it should.” And while

Liger correctly notes that several senators did mention the need to assist the elderly, the fact that a

statute is designed to assist or benefit a particular group does not, standing alone and without more,

create a substantive right; after all, court rules are replete with provisions that provide certain

protections for specific groups, such as the children or the disabled, and yet are nevertheless clearly

procedural. See, e.g., V.I. R. CIV. P. 5.2(a) (privacy redactions of minors’ names); V.I. R. CIV. P.

17(c) (capability of minors, the disabled, and the incapacitated to sue). Because the mandatory

preference statute does not create a new right, but simply governs the implementation of existing

rights, the Superior Court erred when it characterized it as substantive rather than procedural.

    3. The Mandatory Preference Statute Infringes on the Authority of the Judicial Branch

¶ 23    That the mandatory preference statute constitutes procedural rather than substantive law

does not end the separation of powers inquiry, however. As noted earlier, the Revised Organic

Act provides the Legislature and the Judicial Branch with concurrent authority to establish rules

of practice and procedure. The Legislature only infringes on the authority of the Judicial Branch

when the Legislature exercises that power to establish procedures that irreconcilably conflict with

those established by the Judicial Branch or that otherwise impermissibly interfere with the internal

operations of the court system or the authority of individual judicial officers to perform their

official acts.

¶ 24    The Superior Court did not consider this question, given its characterization of the
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger          

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 18 of 28

mandatory preference statute as substantive rather than procedural. Nor does Liger attempt to

seriously address it either: much of this portion of his brief relies on United States v. Salerno, 

 (1987), and other federal case law on the distinction between “facial” and “as-applied”

constitutional challenges. Liger asserts that Limetree has only brought a “facial” challenge to the

mandatory preference statute and analyzes the question through the framing of whether “there are

‘no set of circumstances’ in which the Act would not infringe on the Judiciary’s power.”

(Appellee’s Br. 12.) Rather than address whether the mandatory preference statute infringes on

the inherent authority of courts or conflicts with any provisions of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil

Procedure, Liger identifies a small number of areas where the mandatory preference statute might

not run afoul of the separation of powers, focusing largely on situations where the Superior Court

might have chosen to expedite the trial anyway under some permissible authority.

¶ 25    Liger’s argument is unavailing. As a threshold matter, Liger’s attempt to draw a distinction

between “facial” and “as-applied” separation of powers challenges ignores the important legal

context that this case does not concern the United States Constitution, but rather the Revised

Organic Act, the de facto territorial constitution for the Virgin Islands. While federal case law may

be highly persuasive when interpreting provisions of the Revised Organic Act that were modeled

after similar provisions of the United States Constitution or federal law, such federal cases will

have little or even no persuasive value when the Revised Organic Act differs from these federal

authorities. See Bryan, 

 (declining to apply Chevron deference to local

Virgin Islands administrative agencies but relying on federal case law to determine the meaning

of the term “moral turpitude”). Federal case law pertaining to the powers of Congress to discipline

or remove judges from office under the United States Constitution, for instance, is largely

irrelevant to whether the Revised Organic Act permits the Legislature to discipline or remove
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger          

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 19 of 28

judges in the Virgin Islands, since the Revised Organic Act omits certain language found in Article

I of the United States Constitution pertaining to impeachment and removal. See Kendall, 

.

¶ 26    What Liger overlooks is why federal courts utilize different tests for “facial” and “as

applied” challenges in the first place. The different standards employed by the federal courts stem

from the constraints of Article III of the United States Constitution, which limit the jurisdiction of

the federal courts only to consideration of cases and controversies. Like the recent concerns about

federal courts issuing so-called national or universal injunctions that enjoin government agencies

from acting against non-parties as well, the Supreme Court of the United States developed the

extraordinarily high standard for succeeding on a “facial” challenge to address the fear that federal

courts will exceed their jurisdiction by striking down laws based on constitutional analyses of

hypothetical actions that resemble advisory opinions. See Richmond Medical Ctr. For Women v.

Herring, 

 (4th Cir. 2009).

¶ 27    Yet this concern is wholly irrelevant to the Virgin Islands context: unlike the federal courts,

the courts of the Virgin Islands are not courts of limited jurisdiction organized under Article III

and possess the authority to adjudicate more than just cases and controversies. See, e.g., Simon v.

Joseph, 

 (V.I.2013); In re K.J.F., 

, 340 n.6 (V.I. 2013); Benjamin v.

AIG Ins. Co. of P.R., 

 (V.I. 2012); Vazquez v. Vazquez, 

, 489–90 (V.I.

2010). In fact, it does not appear that this Court has ever distinguished between “facial” and “as-

applied” challenges based on the Revised Organic Act, rather than the United States Constitution.

See, e.g., Balboni, 70 V.I. at 1093-1105 (invalidating a statute based on its inconsistency with the

Equal Protection Clause of the Revised Organic Act without determining whether the challenge is

“facial” or “as applied” or developing different legal tests to distinguish between them). Liger does
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger         

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 20 of 28

not explain why this Court should incorporate this aspect of federal constitutional interpretation

into Virgin Islands separation of powers jurisprudence.

¶ 28    But far more importantly, Liger does not provide any legal authority to support his claim

that there is a distinction between “facial” and “as-applied” separation of powers challenges in the

first place. None of the cases Liger cites to support his claim that courts should apply different

legal standards to “facial” and “as-applied” separation of powers claims actually arose in the

separation of powers context. The primary case relied upon, Salerno, involved challenges only

under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment of the United

States Constitution, 

, and the other cases cited also arose in completely different

constitutional contexts. See, e.g., Nicholas v. People, 

 (V.I. 2012) (Second

Amendment); People v. Rosario, 

 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2015) (right to bail).

¶ 29    The failure of any courts to draw distinctions between types of separation of powers

challenges is not surprising: unlike claims that a statute violates due process or equal protection,

the Supreme Court of the United States, lower federal courts, and state courts of last resort have

consistently characterized actions that violate the separation of powers as structural violations of

the constitution. See Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 

 (1995) (“[T]he doctrine

of separation of powers is a structural safeguard rather than a remedy to be applied only when

specific harm, or risk of specific harm, can be identified. In its major features (of which the

conclusiveness of judicial judgments is assuredly one) it is a prophylactic device, establishing high

walls and clear distinctions because low walls and vague distinctions will not be judicially

defensible in the heat of interbranch conflict.”); see also Miller v. French, 

(2000); Landry v. F.D.I.C., 

 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Kihiu v. State, No. 02-22-

00263-CR, 

, at *2 (Tex. App. Aug. 10, 2023); Commission on Ethics v. Hardy,
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger            

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 21 of 28

 (Nev. 2009). In fact, it is extraordinarily difficult to envision any situation

where the same statutory language unconstitutionally infringes on the authority of the Judicial

Branch with respect to one party but would not do so in a different case involving another party—

either the Legislature had the authority to enact the statute, or it infringed upon the power of the

courts.

¶ 30      Here, the mandatory preference statute enacted by the Legislature unquestionably infringes

on the inherent judicial power exercised by individual judges. As the Supreme Court of Minnesota

eloquently explained,

                  Inherent judicial power governs that which is essential to the existence,
          dignity, and function of a court because it is a court. Its source is the constitutional
          doctrine of separation of powers as expressed and implied in our constitution. Its
          scope is the practical necessity of ensuring the free and full exercise of the court's
          vital function—the disposition of individual cases to deliver remedies for wrongs
          and justice freely and without purchase; completely and without denial; promptly
          and without delay, conformable to the laws.
                  At bottom, inherent judicial power is grounded in judicial self-preservation.
          Obviously, the legislature could seriously hamper the court’s power to hear and
          decide cases or even effectively abolish the court itself through its exercise of
          financial and regulatory authority. If the court has no means of protecting itself
          from unreasonable and intrusive assertions of such authority, the separation of
          powers becomes a myth. The recognition of these truisms has made the doctrine of
          inherent judicial power established law in virtually every American jurisdiction.
          However, as with many legal doctrines, to uphold the existence of inherent judicial
          power in the extreme case does little to guide us in applying it to the numerous and
          varied financial and regulatory pressures imposed upon the courts.

In re Clerk of Lyon Cnty. Courts' Compensation, 

, 784 (1976) (internal citations

omitted). This Court has long recognized, as one such inherent judicial power, the authority of the

courts of the Virgin Islands to exercise discretion over how to manage the cases on their docket.

See, e.g., In re Sheesley, 

, 1023 (V.I. 2019); Greene v. V.I. Water & Power Auth., 

 (V.I. 2017); In re N.A.W., 

, 152 n.5 (V.I. 2014); In re Burke, 

 (V.I. 2008). This inherent judicial power to manage the docket is not unique to the courts
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger           

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 22 of 28

of the Virgin Islands but is a power “of ancient origin,” Feuerman v. Feuerman, 

 (Conn. Ct. App. 1995), that extends to “every court.” Landis v. North American Co., 

 (1936); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 

 (1962); J.W. Hancock Enters. v.

Ariz. State Registrar of Contractors, 

 (Ariz. App. 1984) (“[p]olitical scientists

have long recognized that the separation of powers doctrine does not forbid all blending of powers,

but only is intended to keep one branch of government from exercising the whole power of another

branch,” and “[c]ourts today also recognize that absolute independence of the branches of

government and complete separation of powers is impracticable”).

¶ 31     This does not mean, of course, that the Legislature possesses absolutely no authority

whatsoever over any aspect of docket management. After all, the Legislative, Executive, and

Judicial Branches are precisely that—branches of a single government—and “scientific, absolute

division of power without overlap” is certainly not practical and sometimes not even desirable.7

See Matter of E.B., 

, 588 (Wis. 1983); In re S.R.M., 

, 282 (Kan. Ct.

App. 1999). For instance, this Court has not only upheld, but repeatedly enforced via writ of

mandamus, the statutory directive that the Superior Court rule on a habeas corpus petition “without



7
    Indeed, as James Madison long ago made plain,

         It is agreed on all sides that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments
         ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other
         departments. [But, t]he political apothegm [of separation of powers] . . . does not
         require that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments should be wholly
         unconnected with each other. . . . Unless these departments be so far connected and
         blended as to give to each a constitutional control over the others, the degree of
         separation which the maxim requires, as essential to a free government, can never
         in practice be duly maintained.

THE FEDERALIST NO. 48, at 308 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961).
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger          

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 23 of 28

delay.” 5 V.I.C. § 1304; see, e.g. In re Gillette, 

 (V.I. 2016); In re Fleming, 

 (V.I. 2012); In re Elliot, 

 (V.I. 2010). In doing so, however, this Court

repeatedly emphasized that the statutory requirement that habeas corpus petitions receive

expedited consideration did not destroy the discretion of the Superior Court to manage its docket,

and expressly emphasized that even seemingly long delays in adjudicating a habeas corpus petition

may be permissible, such as in situations where “the petitioner himself is responsible for delays or

if delays are occasioned in obtaining necessary records of earlier proceedings,” and that

compliance with the statute simply requires that the Superior Court act “within a reasonable time”

in which “each situation must be considered on its own facts.” Fleming, 

 (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted). In other words, the habeas corpus statute does not impair

the “free and full exercise of the court's vital function,” Clerk of Lyon Cnty., 241 N.W.2d at 784,

in that the Legislature does not mandate that the Superior Court always rule a certain way and

guides, rather than divests, the Superior Court of its discretion to manage its docket.

¶ 32    But the same cannot be said of the mandatory preference statute. Section 31(b)(1) requires

that a court “shall grant” the motion if filed by a party who at least 70 years of age, 5 V.I.C. §

31(b)(1), entirely divesting it of its inherent judicial power to exercise discretion over how to

manage the case.8 Section 31(b)(4) then mandates that “the court shall set the matter for trial not


8
  At oral argument, Liger’s counsel implied that the mandatory preference statute remains
discretionary because a court could exercise its discretion to choose not to rule on a mandatory
preference motion. See Oral Arg. in Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger,
https://www.vicourts.org/e-
_services/media_services/video_archive/may_14__2024_oral_argument__sct-civ-23-45 at 36:20.
To the extent Liger asserts that the court could, as part of an intentional and conscious scheme to
avoid having to comply with the law, literally just ignore the mandatory preference motion entirely
and set its own trial date as if the motion had never been filed, the argument is without merit. A
court lacks the discretion to completely ignore a duly filed motion, see Estate Choc. Hole
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger          

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 24 of 28

more than 180 days from that date that the elderly party moves for preference,” 5 V.I.C. § 31(b)(4),

again entirely divesting it of its inherent judicial power to schedule the matter. Section 31(b)(4)

further prohibits the court from granting any continuance except for physical disability, and even

then, limits the court to only granting one such continuance which cannot exceed 30 days. These

provisions do not merely guide the Superior Court in how to manage its docket, but instead divest

the Superior Court of its discretion entirely and transfers it to any party who is 70 years of age or

over and files a motion pursuant to the mandatory preference statute.9

¶ 33    In addition to impermissibly interfering with the inherent judicial power of individual

judges, the mandatory preference statute further infringes on the authority of the Judicial Branch—

and particularly this Court—to exercise its inherent power to manage its own internal affairs. “It


Landowners’ Assoc., Inc. v. Cenni, 

, and doing so to essentially judicially veto a
law through deliberate non-compliance violates multiple provisions of the Virgin Islands Code of
Judicial Conduct. See, e.g., V.I.S.CT.R. 213.1.1; 213.2.2; 213.2.5. That Liger’s counsel believes
the only way for a court to meaningfully exercise discretion under the mandatory preference statute
is to simply ignore a motion requesting application of the mandatory preference statute is perhaps
the strongest proof possible that the mandatory preference statute completely divests a court of all
such discretion.
9
  At oral argument, Liger’s counsel analogized the mandatory preference statute to a statute of
limitations, which he asserted likewise divests the Superior Court of discretion. See Oral Arg. in
Limetree      Bay      Terminals,       LLC       v.     Liger,          https://www.vicourts.org/e-
_services/media_services/video_archive/may_14__2024_oral_argument__sct-civ-23-45 at 44:50.
As a threshold matter, Liger is incorrect that statutes of limitations completely and totally divest
the Superior Court of discretion, since statutes of limitations are not absolute in that judicially
created doctrines such as equitable tolling, the discovery rule, and waiver permit the Superior
Court to extend or set aside the limitations period in individual cases under certain circumstances.
See, e.g., United Corp. v. Hamed, 

 (V.I. 2016) (collecting cases); Rennie v.
Hess Oil V.I. Corp., 

 (V.I. 2015) (collecting cases); Jensen v. V.I. Water &
Power Authority, 

 (V.I. 2009). And perhaps more importantly, a statute of limitations
regulates the conduct of plaintiffs by requiring them to file a complaint within the specified
limitations period. The mandatory preference statute, in contrast, expressly prohibits any
modification of the 180 day trial date except for a single 30-day continuance for physical disability,
and affirmatively imposes nearly all of its obligations on the Superior Court rather than on the
parties.
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger         

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 25 of 28

is an inherent power of any court of last resort to develop procedural rules of general applicability

for the entire judicial branch.” Gerace, 

 (collecting cases). And as explained earlier,

while the Legislature possesses concurrent jurisdiction to develop court procedures, that

concurrent jurisdiction does not extend to overruling the procedural court rules promulgated by

this Court, for “conflicts between [procedural] rules promulgated by the judiciary and [procedural]

rules promulgated by the legislature are resolved in favor of the judiciary.” 

.

¶ 34    As Limetree and the Government correctly recognize, several of the rules of practice and

procedure promulgated by this Court govern the same subject-matter as the mandatory preference

statute. Section 31(b)(1) is inconsistent with Rules 16 and 26 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil

Procedure, which expressly and unambiguously vest the Superior Court—and not an individual

party—with authority over scheduling matters, including determining when trial occurs. Section

31(b)(4) is inconsistent with Civil Rules 6 and 6-3, which permits the Superior Court to grant

extensions of time or a continuance of any trial, conference, hearing, or other matter upon a

demonstration of good cause, for reasons other than physical disability and without limiting the

total number of extensions or continuances or their length.

¶ 35    Liger, perhaps recognizing these conflicts, provides one final reason for this Court to not

invalidate the mandatory preference statute on separation of powers grounds: that Limetree “had

plenty of unused tools in its toolbelt” that it never utilized prior to raising its constitutional

challenge. (Appellee’s Br. 15.) Specifically, Liger asserts that

        •   Consistent with Rule 6(b), [Limetree] could have moved the Superior Court to
            move deadlines as warranted upon a showing of good cause.

        •   Consistent with Rule 6-3, [Limetree] could have moved the Superior Court to
            reset trial, again upon a showing of Rule 6(b) good cause.

        •   Consistent with Rule 16, [Limetree] could have moved for the entrance of its
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger         

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 26 of 28

            preferred scheduling order, which would have highlighted any actual conflict if
            the Court were asked to exercise discretion contrary to Act 8468.

        •   Consistent with Rule 26, if [Limetree] was dissatisfied that the last-minute
            discovery was being taken despite the trial setting, [Limetree] could have
            moved for a protective order.

        •   Consistent with Rules 6-4 or 60, once trial was set, [Limetree] could have asked
            the Superior Court to reconsider its granting the motion for preference trial,
            with a factual showing of how the trial setting infringes the power of the
            Judiciary.

(Appellee’s Br. 15-16.)

¶ 36    Liger’s claim that Limetree was somehow required to undertake any of these actions as a

prerequisite to raising its separation of powers argument wholly lacks merit. This Court has

repeatedly held that a litigant need not take actions which are “futile” or would “unnecessarily

waste judicial resources” to preserve an issue for appellate review. See Tip Top Constr. Corp. v.

Gov’t of the V.I., S. Ct. Civ. No. 2014-0006, 

, at *1 n.1 (V.I. Feb. 14, 2014)

(unpublished); Fleming, 

. This principle is especially important in a case such as this

where a party asserts that another party should have done “a futile act to preserve a right not

dependent on and only tangentially related to the act.” See NLRB v. Miller Brewing Co., 

 (9th Cir. 1969).

¶ 37    In this case, Liger filed a motion solely pursuant to the mandatory preference statute,

without also requesting a discretionary preference under either discretionary preference statute or

any pertinent provision of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure. As outlined earlier, the

mandatory preference statute, by its own express and unambiguous terms, mandates that the

Superior Court grant a mandatory preference every time such a motion is filed by a party over 70

years of age; the Superior Court lacks the discretion to deny the preference. 5 V.I.C. § 31(b)(1).

The mandatory preference statute further requires that the Superior Court set a trial date for no
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger          

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 27 of 28

later than 180 days from the date the elderly litigant files the motion; the Superior Court lacks the

discretion to choose a date beyond the 180-day limit. 5 V.I.C. § 31(b)(4). And while the mandatory

preference statute permits the Superior Court to continue that trial, it may only grant a total of one

continuance for no longer than 30 days, and only for the reason of physical disability. Id. In fact,

Liger vehemently argued in his preference motion that the Superior Court lacked any discretion at

all with respect to any of these matters because “[t]he word “shall” is mandatory” and “does not

afford discretion.” (J.A. 34.) The only way that any of the motions Liger asserts Limetree could

have filed would have been anything other than futile would be if the mandatory preference statute

is unconstitutional10—and if the statute is unconstitutional, it is not clear why this Court should

decline to say so simply because Limetree failed to needlessly expend the resources to file these



10
  At oral argument, Liger’s counsel asserted that section 31(b)(6) provides the Superior Court
with the discretion to rule on these motions. See Oral Arg. in Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v.
Liger, https://www.vicourts.org/e-
_services/media_services/video_archive/may_14__2024_oral_argument__sct-civ-23-45 at
23:40. That portion of the statute provides, in its entirety, as follows:

        (6) Unless the court otherwise orders:
                (A) A party may file and serve a motion for preference supported by a
        declaration of the moving party that all essential parties have been served with
        process or have appeared.
                (B) At any time during the pendency of the action, a party who reaches 70
        years of age may file and serve a motion for preference.
                (C) At any time during the pendency of the action, a party who is diagnosed
        as terminally ill with less than six (6) months to live may file and serve a motion
        for preference.

All this language does, however, is provide the Superior Court with limited discretion to regulate
when a litigant may file a motion for preference, i.e. to modify the default rules that such a motion
may be filed “[a]t any time during the pendency of the action” and that it be accompanied with “a
declaration of the moving party that all essential parties have been served with process or have
appeared.” There is nothing in the plain text of section 31(b)(6), or any other portion of the statute,
that provides the Superior Court with discretion to deny a preference motion filed by a party who
is 70 years of age or older, or to set a trial date beyond 180 days of the date the motion was filed.
Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC v. Liger        

S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0045
Opinion of the Court
Page 28 of 28

ancillary motions after the Superior Court had already rejected its constitutional arguments on the

merits. Consequently, we hold that the mandatory preference statute, section 31(b)(1), violates the

separation of powers principles of the Revised Organic Act and is therefore unconstitutional as a

matter of Virgin Islands law.

                                       III. CONCLUSION

¶ 38    The Superior Court committed error when it characterized the mandatory preference statute

as substantive rather than procedural, and thus erred when it held that it did not violate the

separation of powers guarantees of the Revised Organic Act. Accordingly, we declare the

mandatory preference, section 31(b)(1) statute unconstitutional and void as a matter of Virgin

Islands law, and reverse the June 7, 2023 order.

Dated this 2nd day of August, 2024.


                                                     BY THE COURT:


                                                     /s/ Rhys S. Hodge_____
                                                     RHYS S. HODGE
                                                     Chief Justice
ATTEST:

VERONICA J. HANDY, ESQ.
Clerk of the Court
By: /s/ Jahkyda Coakley
         Deputy Clerk II
Dated: August 2, 2024