Christine Armour, et al., Petitioners v. City of Indianapolis, Indiana, et al. (566 U.S. 673)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 4, 2012 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 566 U.S. 673 · 132 S. Ct. 2073
- Decided
- June 4, 2012
- Term
- October Term 2011
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. ■ For many years, an Indiana statute, the “Barrett Law,” authorized Indiana’s cities to impose upon benefited lot own.ers the cost of sewer improvement projects. The Barrett Law also permitted those lot owners to pay either immediately in the form of a lump sum or over time in installments. In 2005, the city of Indianapolis (Indianapolis or City) adopted a new assessment and payment method, the “STEP” plan, and it forgave any Barrett Law installments that lot owners had not yet paid. A group of lot owners who had already paid their entire Barrett Law assessment in a lump sum believe that the City should have provided them with equivalent refunds. And we must decide whether the City’s refusal to do so unconstitutionally discriminates against them in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, Arndt. 14, § 1. We hold that the City had a rational basis for distinguishing between those lot owners who had already paid their share of project costs and those who had not. And we conclude that there is no equal protection violation. I A Beginning in 1889, Indiana’s Barrett Law permitted cities to pay for public improvements, such as sewage projects, by “apportioning]” the costs of a project “equally among all abutting lands or lots.” Ind. Code § 36-9-39-15(b)(3) (2011); see Town Council of New Harmony v. Parker, 726 N. E. 2d 1217, 1227,…
Excerpt of a 24,313-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.