|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-161||Ind. S. Ct.||Feb 29, 2012||Jun 4, 2012||6-3||Breyer||OT 2011|
Holding: Because the city had a rational basis for its distinction between homeowners who had paid their taxes in a lump sum and those who paid over time by installments, the city’s refusal to provide a refund to those who paid in a lump sum did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Plain English Summary: Governments pay for civic projects, like new sewers, by requiring property owners to pay their fair share. In Indiana, state law assures that such shares would be equal for homeowners as they connected to the city sewer system. But Indianapolis decided to let taxpayers either pay for their connection one month at a time, or all at once, in the beginning. Later, it switched its payment system, and forgave any amounts still owed by those paying on the installment plan. Those who had paid in full thought that was unfair, because they had paid everything they owed, while their neighbors had not. They asked for refunds to make them equal, as state law required. The Court ruled that, as long as the initial obligations to pay were the same, the city need not pay refunds to those who had paid in full because that would be a bureaucratic hassle, and state law did not guarantee refunds, anyway.
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on June 4, 2012. The Chief Justice filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Scalia and Alito joined.
Merits Briefs for the Petition
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioner
Merits Briefs for the Respondent
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondents
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...