NEWPORT — Lawyers for Governor Carcieri and House Democratic leaders brought their four-year battle over control of the powerful Coastal Resources Management Council before the state Supreme Court yesterday. The justices’ responses gave mixed signals of how they may rule.

Chief Justice Frank J. Williams said the court doesn’t like to give advisory opinions on such constitutional questions. And Rebecca Partington, representing Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch, asked the justices to stay out of the feud between the other two branches of government.

But during a special Supreme Court session at Salve Regina University, lawyers for the House leaders and Carcieri argued for nearly an hour that the court should intercede and decide who should control the small but critical coastal council.

Justice Paul A. Suttell, giving a recap for the largely student audience, said the dispute is “the most interesting case we’ll hear this term, if not for a number of years.”

The House maintains the state Constitution requires the General Assembly to protect the coastline. Carcieri argues that overwhelming voter approval of the Separation of Powers constitutional amendment in 2004 removed legislators from many state boards and put the coastal council squarely into the executive branch of government, where he makes appointments.

The council sets policy for coastal development and regulates virtually all coastal activities. Often, it sits much like a judicial panel and hears conflicting evidence on development projects. It is expected to rule on billions of dollars in coastal investments, ranging from wind farms to marinas and condominiums. The council has only 29 employees, but its biggest decisions are made by a board of volunteers that, until 2004, comprised gubernatorial appointees and a majority bloc of legislators and their appointees.

After the 2004 referendum, the legislators stepped down. But the council is still dominated by people appointed by the legislature. The Senate has been willing to let Carcieri make the appointments, with advice and consent by the Senate. But the House has refused to give in.

Lawyer Joseph S. Larisa Jr., representing Carcieri, told the high court that the governor and legislators had worked out settlements in other areas where the legislature had been involved, such as the former state Lottery Commission and various education governing boards.

But Larisa said, “The governor believes you should hear this case. There is no more working this out.”

Larisa said only three governor’s appointees remain on the coastal council and the agency has had trouble getting quorums for its meetings.

“The 2004 constitutional amendment changed the structure of Rhode Island government in a way that hasn’t happened since 1843” when the state Constitution was adopted, Larisa said. “The people of Rhode Island spoke clearly. There should be no more legislative appointments to boards exercising executive powers.”

Carcieri’s position was backed by briefs from several state environmental groups as well as Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and the Rhode Island State Council of Churches.

Lawyer Sandra Lanni, representing House leaders, argued that the coastal council is not a core part of the executive branch, as for instance, is the Department of Administration.

Rather, she said, it is special and independent, a creation of the legislature to fulfill its responsibilities to protect and regulate the coastal areas.

“There is a difference between a body that exercises some executive functions and one that has executive powers,” Lanni said. “As government has become more complex, we have all of these boards and agencies to help the legislature do its job.

“This is a case where the legislature has taken some of its powers and delegated them to an independent agency which operates in a nonpartisan way,” Lanni said. “This creates an independent regulatory agency which clearly crosses boundaries.”

Williams repeated that he wasn’t sure the court should be handling this case. “I’m much taken that we shouldn’t interfere with another branch of government,” he said. “Let’s assume we shouldn’t be micromanaging a dispute between the legislature and the governor. It’s very heated, very political and very emotional. Do we just tell them to take it outside?”

In this case, each justice will write his own, individual opinion. Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg recused herself.

plord@projo.com