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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT