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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT