Term: 2011
Docket: 11-161
Christine Armour, Et Al., Petitioners v. City Of Indianapolis, Indiana, Et Al.
- Pro
11-161 ARMOUR V. INDIANAPOLIS DECISION BELOW: 946 N.E.2d 553 CERT. GRANTED 11/14/2011 QUESTION PRESENTED: Petitioners are the owners of 31 residential real estate parcels in Indianapolis, Indiana, who were assessed approximately $9,000 each for connection to a public sewer system. Petitioners paid their assessments in full, while their neighbors-owners of approximately 150 other parcels-elected to pay in monthly installments over 10, 20, or 30 years. Shortly thereafter, the City adopted a new assessment scheme that vastly reduced each taxpayer's burden. The City forgave the outstanding balances of those taxpayers who were paying in installments, but it refused to refund payments made by those who had already paid in full. The Indiana Supreme Court-in conflict with decisions of a federal court holding the very same conduct unconstitutional and other state high courts-held that this action did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, even though it allowed the City to retain from each petitioner 30 times as much in assessed taxes as identically situated owners paid. In so holding, the 3-2 majority of the Indiana Supreme Court dismissed this Court's unanimous decision in Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. County Commission, 488 U.S. 336 (1989), as "narrowed to its facts." App. 28a. The question presented is: Whether the Equal Protection Clause precludes a local taxing authority from refusing to refund payments made by those who have paid their assessments in full, while forgiving the obligations of identically situated taxpayers who chose to pay over a multi-year installment plan. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 49S02-1007-CV-402
In the case of Christine Armour, et al. v. City of Indianapolis, Indiana, et al., 2011, the petitioners challenged a decision by the city to stop collecting special assessments for sewer projects from homeowners who were paying in installments and forgive their remaining balances while not refunding those who had already paid in full. The Supreme Court ruled that this did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as there was no evidence that it was an arbitrary policy or motivated by ill will towards any particular group. Instead, they found that it was a rational attempt to address administrative difficulties associated with continuing collections after changing funding methods for such projects.
In the dissenting opinion for Christine Armour, et al., v. City of Indianapolis, Indiana, et al., Justice Roberts argued that the city's decision to forgive remaining balances on Barrett Law assessments while continuing to demand payment from those who had already paid in full was fundamentally unfair and violated principles of equal protection under the law. He contended that there was no rational basis for treating these two groups differently; both benefited equally from sewer improvements and should therefore share costs equally. The majority's argument—that administrative convenience justified this unequal treatment—was dismissed by Roberts as insufficient grounds for such a stark disparity in financial burden. He concluded that if anything constitutes arbitrary government action violating constitutional protections against discrimination, it is surely this case where homeowners were treated unequally based solely on how they chose to pay their tax bills.
