AG saves taxpayer money

July 25, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
For the second time in a month, the Indiana Attorney General’s office has decided not to appeal court decisions that didn’t come out in its favor regarding new laws.

Earlier this month, the office announced it wouldn’t appeal U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker’s July 1 ruling that a law requiring bookstores, retailers, and others to register with the state and pay a fee to sell any sexually explicit material was in violation of the First Amendment. Yesterday, nearly a month after another law was struck down in its entirety for being unconstitutionally vague, the AG’s office said it wouldn’t appeal.

On June 24, U.S. District Chief Judge David Hamilton of the Southern District of Indiana struck down portions of a new law requiring all sex offenders – even those who had served their sentence – to be subject to blanket searches of their homes and computers by authorities. The judge ruled that portion of the law was unconstitutional.

Instead of appealing, the attorney general’s office said it will work with legislators this fall to ensure new laws that are passed regarding these issues are effective and constitutional.

The office also noted that part of its latest decision not to appeal was because it would be costly to taxpayers, throwing out a figure of $100,000. It would be especially costly if the state didn’t win its appeal. It’s good to see the attorney general’s office is thinking of the taxpayers and not spending unnecessary money on an appeal they probably wouldn’t win.

Money must be no object when it comes to the legislative prayer suit brought by four taxpayers against Brian Bosma, then-speaker of the Indiana House of Representatives, for allowing prayers that were overtly Christian in content.

After two years of litigation – which the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals denied hearing en banc after dismissing the suit – at least $350,000 has been spent defending the representatives’ right to praise a higher religious power at the start of each House session.

What made the legislative prayer suit worth spending money on as opposed to suits challenging laws that relate to the sex-offender registry or sexually explicit materials? When does the state draw the line and decide it has spent too much pursuing or defending a lawsuit?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT