ILNews

SCOTUS rules in favor of Indianapolis in sewer dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled Monday that the city of Indianapolis did not violate the Federal Equal Protection Clause when it refused to refund money to residents who paid the in-full assessment up front for sewer work.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote the 13-page opinion for the majority, which held Indianapolis had a rational basis for distinguishing past payments from future payments by homeowners.

The lawsuit, Christine Armour, et al., petitioners v. City of Indianapolis, et al., No. 11-161, which originated in Marion County, was brought by 31 homeowners who paid a lump sum to the city for sewer improvements. The city used Indiana’s Barrett Law for the project – the costs of the project would be apportioned equally among all abutting lots. Residents had the option to pay the assessment in a lump sum or over time in installments. When the city abandoned the Barrett Law financing system a year after completing the assessments, the Board of Public Works forgave all assessment amounts still owed under the old financing system. Those who paid up front received no refund, and those who still owed money no longer had to make payments.

The trial court ruled in favor of the homeowners and the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, but a divided Indiana Supreme Court reversed. The Indiana majority ruled that the city didn’t violate the constitution by refusing to grant the refunds because the distinction between those who had paid up front and those who hadn’t was rationally related to the city’s legitimate interest in reducing administrative costs. The city wanted to provide financial hardship relief to homeowners by transitioning away from the Barrett Law system and preserve its limited resources.

“The City’s classification does not involve a fundamental right or suspect classification. Its subject matter is local, economic, social and commercial,” wrote Breyer. “It is a tax classification. And no one claims that the City had discriminated against out-of-state commerce or new residents. Hence, the City’s distinction does not violate the Equal Protection Clause as long as ‘there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.’”

The majority also held that administrative concerns can often justify a tax-related distinction and Indianapolis’ decision to stop collecting outstanding Barrett Law debts finds rational support in the city’s administrative concerns.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito dissented, relying on Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Commission of Webster Cty., 488 U.S. 336 (1989). They noted how Indiana’s tax scheme explicitly provides that costs will “be primarily apportioned equally among all abutting lands or lots.”

“We have never before held that administrative burdens justify grossly disparate tax treatment of those the State has provided should be treated alike,” wrote Roberts. “… The Equal Protection Clause does not provide that no State shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, unless it’s too much of a bother.’”

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT