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.’”



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.