• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Armour v. Indianapolis: "Money Down the Sewer"

    Not many cases involving the financing of municipal sewer construction projects are likely to raise issues that might interest the Supreme Court (or anyone else for that matter), but at least one has.  On Monday, the Supreme Court decided Armour v. Indianapolis, which rejected an Equal Protection Clause challenge to the decision by the city of Indianapolis to alter how it would finance such projects.

    At one time, Indianapolis funded sewer projects by charging the affected property owners, who could pay their bill in a lump sum or by installments (with interest).  Indianapolis later changed its approach, using flat fees and bonds to fund the system.  The city council adopted an implementing ordinance, and the City Board of Public Works later enacted another resolution on the subject.  The board decided that, going forward, residents paying on the installment plan for old projects could cease making payments.  The effect of that resolution, however, was that residents who had made up-front lump sum payments would be worse off than residents who made installment payments.  Some residents who paid up front objected (I can hear them saying, “What the &*#k!? – Why don’t we get a partial refund, too!?”) and asked the city for a small rebate.  The city said no dice, so the residents sued, claiming that the city’s distinction violated the Equal Protection Clause.  In an opinion by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court rejected that argument, finding reasonable the city’s prospective vs. retrospective distinction.  Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia and Alito, dissented.

    The majority opinion is simple and straightforward.  The Court started by discussing how to analyze the constitutionality of this distinction.  It turns out that the law on this subject is well settled.  When a court reviews a law regulating the economic relationship between parties or, like a tax, between them and the government, the justices usually pat the legislature on the head, say “Good dog!,” and give the legislature a treat.  By contrast, when a court reviews a law that discriminates against someone on the basis of race or because a person has exercised a constitutional right, the justices ordinarily stand with their arms akimbo, say “Bad dog!,” and send the legislature to its cage without any supper.  Economic classifications, including distinctions drawn by a tax code, almost always receive the former treatment, and, according to the majority, this case was no different.  Resolving the case therefore required no heavy lifting.  The majority thought, “Hey, all we have to do is identify a justification that (barely) passes the laugh test – how about, avoiding the administrative costs of calculating refunds or other adjustments? – and, like Jackie Gleason used to say, ‘Away we go.’”  And so they did.

    Not so the Chief.  He took exception with the city’s refusal to grant the lump-sum payers a partial rebate because he found inadequate the city’s justifications—viz., “the desire to avoid administrative hassle and the fiscal challenge of giving back money that it wanted to keep” (internal punctuation omitted).  That first justification was insufficient, he said, because state law required all costs to be apportioned equally among the affected parties and because there is no codicil to the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of the law “‘unless it’s too much of a bother.”” Besides, the city already has the information, so all that the bureaucracy needs to do is “cut the checks and mail them out.”  As for the city’s second defense – “We want to keep the money,” a defense that the majority did not embrace – the Chief’s response was both concise and tart: “‘Fiscally challenging’ gives euphemism a bad name.”

    The Armour case is a minnow in a sea where whales like the Obamacare and Arizona immigration cases are swimming.  Few people will be affected by the decision; fewer will read it; fewer still will care.  But even small cases can teach us a big lesson.

    The justices in the majority and the dissent are all intelligent, sophisticated people, so that everyone knew what was going on here.  Like any other legislative body, the city didn’t put the lump sum payments into Al Gore’s “lockbox”; the city spent them.  The city was savvy enough, however, to realize that this argument had all the charm of an untipped waiter, and offered a second defense.  Channeling any large bureaucracy, the city threw up the argument that a refund program would impose needless administrative burdens on city employees (read: require us to do something that we don’t want to do), which is sufficient to avoid making the payments.  After offering the second defense, the city ducked, because the second defense can’t fly if you don’t buy the first one.  That is, if the city does not have a right to keep the money, then it can’t defend against returning it by saying that it will be costly to follow the law.

    The majority bought it.  The majority did so by considering the city’s defenses in reverse order.  The majority agreed with the city that it might be costly to return the money, so the city was entitled to keep it.  That, the majority concluded, was enough of a rational basis for allowing the distinction to stand.

    Chief Justice Roberts was not so easily bought off.  In his view, the city could not treat lump-sum payers and installment-payers differently just because the former made the bad choice to pay in advance.  Essentially, he said that, unlike the soup Nazi, the government must justify its distinctions with reasons, not diktats.

    It is comforting to believe that judges know that what is really behind a government decision.  It would be even more comforting to have them tell us what they know.  Despite what the majority said, this case is not about administrative burdens.  The Chief explained why, using specifics; the majority avoided the specifics and spoke in generalities.  The reality was that Indianapolis got its paws on money and didn’t want to let it go, because it was already spent.  Indianapolis didn’t pass an ordinance stiff-arming the lump-sum payers; the city let the bureaucracy handle the dirty job.  But Indianapolis might as well have written an ordinance in neon over city hall saying, to borrow from Dante, “Abandon hope of a refund all ye who send money here.”  At least that would have been honest.

    Like anyone who has stood in line at the DMV, the majority knuckled under to the Man.  Perhaps, the justices in the majority dreamt of the day when our ancestors stormed the barricades protesting the King’s arbitrary rule.  But dreams aren’t real, unlike bureaucracy, which is real.  Painfully real.  Like everyone else who lives in modern-day America’s sometimes maddening, always mind-numbing, bureaucratic state, the justices in the majority kept their mouth shut and decided not to fight city hall.

    As I said at the outset, Armour is a small potatoes case.  It may never appear in a law school case book, a law review, or anything larger than a blog.  But it does contain a lesson, which is this:  The public treasury, whether in Washington or in Indianapolis, is a black hole.  Nothing escapes, because it might cost a farthing to return that money to its rightful owner.  And, according to the Supreme Court, that is a constitutionally sufficient reason to let the government keep whatever it can grab.  It would have been nice to read a debate about whether that is a legitimate way to run a railroad.  Unfortunately, only three members of the Court were willing to enter into that debate.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to Armour v. Indianapolis: "Money Down the Sewer"

    1. Bobbie says:

      it's across the country! Government municipalities can not be trusted. They have no integrity. Overpaid also! They ALWAYS overcharge and take their duties out of context just to cheat. and say "oops sorry we get to keep it." They have no qualities in human integrity. They'd cheat their own family. Unfair and uncouth.

      What's fair, couth and honest where and when government takes over within it's constitution, is what applies to all those equally accountable (same responsibilities.) Too much favor of their own without expected principle, corrupt by their own nature and we wonder what kind of public education the taxpayers were obligated to pay for the degrees in their possession meaning nothing when it works against some in favor of others. It's insubordinate for the government to discriminate based on race, creed, culture. It's important and necessary to discriminate based on background checks and qualifications.

      (The state bar gives you access to find a lawyer but they don't give you a choice. They're picked at random so no one is picked over another! WHAT KIND OF CRAP IS THAT? GET RID OF THE GOVERNMENT LAWYER BUSINESS. THEY ONLY SERVE WHATEVER GOVERNMENT WANTS.)

      What can be handled in the private sector means ANY government jobs that replaced or compete against them are not vital at all, highly inefficient, without discipline, untrustworthy, and unsafe and should always be at less pay then the private sector. Government control lies, cheats and steals for a living at the cost of America(ns.)

      The "pre" conditions of obamacare is a "play" word. Who wouldn't be diagnosed with a
      "pre" condition when an agenda is at hand? As quick as obama health care take over was dumped on America with such refusal of the will of the people, is as quick as it CAN be repealed. REPEAL! Let costs be determined by ethical private medical practices and open the self governing free market. It wouldn't cost so much for my CONdition (no "pre" as it was brought on by unknown reasons) if everyone was personally responsible to PAY their own. There's NOTHING to SAVE in Obamacare that isn't entrapment! It MUST BE REPEALED!

      Eliminate all preventive care government funds as it OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T WORK when statistics shows skyrocketing percentages of the illnesses that preventive care is suppose to prevent. Quit the government thievery and make work as there are enough resources for people to prevent whatever government is paying themselves to advocate needlessly. People handle their own lives regardless!
      sorry, at least I left immigration out…

      • What a teriible article. Cut the sarcastic cap and at least tell what the vote was. I still don't know.

        • Bobbie says:

          …that's not sarcasm, that''s passion. You'll find the difference in the dictionary. Sorry for your mistake…

        • Raj Bhattarai says:

          Last sentence of second paragraph: "Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia and Alito, dissented." That means Chief Justice Roberts, and justices Scalia and Alito dissented with the majority's opinion and voted against it. The others six justices – Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, Kennedy, Sotomayor and Thomas voted for it.

    2. Stephen Lee says:

      "Carpet-bagger" –• a person perceived as an unscrupulous opportunist. Is there any doubt this describes any Government Official at any level of Government. We had better put zippers on all our pockets–the government thieves backed by the irrational decisions of the Black Robbed Judges, slobbering on their own children, have legally decided our money is their's and they are coming after it.

    3. Steve says:

      Whether by individual, faction or government, the taking of property from another is theft. The thief always has rationales of justification or excuses when caught. For this, there are no excuses!

    4. Larry Huffman says:

      So it finally returns to the voter. Throw out the people who approved this at the next election, and get rid of their underlings too.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×