Posts
This Forum has spared
no expense in its criticism of the conservatives Justices of the Supreme
Court who usually vote their personal beliefs rather than the law. Justice Scalia is, of course, the leader in
that practice but he is almost always joined by the other three highly conservative
Justices and occasionally by Justice Kennedy who more often votes with them
because he just doesn’t know any better.
But occasionally the
conservative Justices get it right, and in a case just decided involving the city of
Indianapolis and sewers, Justices Roberts, Alito and Scalia did get it
right.
______________________________________________________________________________
ARMOUR v. INDIANAPOLIS
Syllabus
ARMOUR v. INDIANAPOLIS ( )
946 N. E. 2d 553, affirmed.
946 N. E. 2d 553, affirmed.
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
ARMOUR et al. v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, et al.
certiorari to the supreme court of indiana
No. 11–161. Argued February 29, 2012—Decided June 4, 2012
_______________________________________________________________________________
It seems the city of Indianapolis had a policy
of charging property owners for sewer improvements that affected their
property. The owners were given the
choice of making a lump sum payment for the improvements, or making payments
over time.
In one project the
city accepted payment in full in lump sums from a group of property owners.
After the City
completed the Brisbane/Manning Sanitary Sewers Project, it sent affected
homeowners formal notice of their payment obligations. Of the 180 affected
homeowners, 38 elected to pay the lump sum.
It then changed the rules of sewer improvements
The
following year, the City abandoned Barrett Law financing and adopted the Septic
Tank Elimination Program (STEP), which financed projects in part through bonds,
thereby lowering individual owner’s sewer-connection costs. In implementing
STEP, the City’s Board of Public Works enacted a resolution forgiving all
assessment amounts still owed pursuant to Barrett Law financing. Homeowners who
had paid the Brisbane/Manning Project lump sum received no refund, while
homeowners who had elected to pay in installments were under no obligation to
make further payments.
and the 38 property owners who were not treated equally sued
to get their money back under the Equal Protection Clause. They lost.
The
trial court granted summary judgment to the homeowners, and the State Court of
Appeals affirmed. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the City’s
distinction between those who had already paid and those who had not was
rationally related to its legitimate interests in reducing administrative
costs, providing financial hardship relief to homeowners, transitioning from
the Barrett Law system to STEP, and preserving its limited resources.
Held: The
City had a rational basis for its distinction and thus did not violate the
Equal Protection Clause. Pp. 6–14.
Obviously what happened here is that the city of Indianapolis just wanted
to keep the money it had already collected from the 38 property owners. And regardless of what the Indiana Supreme
Court said and regardless of what the U. S. Supreme Court said, those 38
property owners were denied equal protection under the law. The three conservative dissenting judges got
it right. Here is Chief Justice Roberts
in a rare case of writing clearly and effectively and correctly.
In
seeking to justify this gross disparity, the City explained that it was
presented with three choices: First, it could have continued to collect the
installment plan payments of those who had not yet settled their debts under
the old system. Second, it could have forgiven all those debts and given
equivalent refunds to those who had made lump sum payments up front. Or third,
it could have forgiven the future payments and not refunded payments that had
already been made. The first two choices had the benefit of complying with
state law, treating all of Indianapolis
And
what did the City believe was sufficient to justify a system that would
effectively charge petitioners 30 times more than their neighbors for the same
service—when state law promised equal treatment? Two things: the desire to
avoid administrative hassle and the “fiscal[ ] chal- leng[e]” of giving
back money it wanted to keep. Brief for Respondents 35–36. I cannot agree that
those reasons pass constitutional muster, even under rational basis review.
And yes, as noted
Justice Thomas once again was on the losing side, not the losing side of
the decision, the losing side of logic and the law. Justice Thomas, having an opportunity to
demonstrate minimal competence in the law, and once again is late for
dinner.
No comments:
Post a Comment