Armour v. City of Indianapolis
566 U.S. (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A governmental classification in a tax or economic context does not violate the Equal Protection Clause if there is a rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and a legitimate governmental purpose, such as administrative convenience and cost-saving.
Facts:
- For many years, the City of Indianapolis (Indianapolis) used the 'Barrett Law' to fund sewer projects, allowing homeowners to pay their assessment either in a single lump sum or over time in installments.
- In 2001, Indianapolis initiated the Brisbane/Manning Sanitary Sewers Project, which was completed in 2003.
- In July 2004, the City assessed approximately 180 affected homeowners $9,278 each for the project.
- Thirty-eight homeowners, the petitioners in this case, chose to pay the full assessment in a lump sum.
- The remaining homeowners elected to pay in 10, 20, or 30-year installments.
- In 2005, Indianapolis decided to abandon the Barrett Law system and adopt a new financing method called the Septic Tank Elimination Program (STEP).
- As part of the transition to STEP, the City passed a resolution forgiving all outstanding Barrett Law assessment payments due from November 1, 2005, forward.
- Indianapolis denied requests for refunds from the homeowners who had paid their full assessment in a lump sum, resulting in them paying the full $9,278 while their neighbors who chose installments paid as little as $309.27 in total.
Procedural Posture:
- Thirty-one homeowners who paid the sewer assessment in a lump sum sued the City of Indianapolis in an Indiana state trial court, alleging a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the homeowners.
- The City of Indianapolis, as appellant, appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's judgment for the homeowners (appellees).
- The City of Indianapolis, as appellant, then appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court, which reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding the City's actions constitutional.
- The homeowners, as petitioners, were granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city violate the Equal Protection Clause when it forgives future installment payments for a public works project but refuses to provide refunds to homeowners who had already paid the same assessment in a lump sum?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
No. The City's decision to forgive future installment payments without refunding past lump-sum payments does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the distinction is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Because the classification involves economic matters and does not target a suspect class or impinge on a fundamental right, it is subject to rational basis review, which is highly deferential to legislative judgments. The City's decision was rationally based on administrative convenience; it was reasonable to avoid the complexity and expense of maintaining a collection system for years to come for a dwindling number of small, long-term debts. Adding a refund program would have imposed its own administrative burdens and costs. This distinction between past payments and future obligations is a common and rational line for legislatures to draw, and the petitioners failed to meet their burden of negating every conceivable basis that might support it.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Roberts
Yes. The City's policy violates the Equal Protection Clause because it creates a gross and unjustifiable disparity in tax treatment among identically situated citizens. State law required the sewer costs to be 'apportioned equally,' placing all abutting landowners in the same class. Forgiving the debts of most homeowners while requiring petitioners to pay between 10 and 30 times as much for the same service is a clear violation of this principle, analogous to the unconstitutional scheme in Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Commission of Webster Cty. Administrative convenience is not a sufficient justification for such a gross disparity, as the Equal Protection Clause cannot be disregarded simply because it is 'too much of a bother.' The city's other justification, that refunding the money would be 'fiscally challenging,' is not a legitimate reason to deprive citizens of equal treatment under the law.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high level of deference courts afford to legislative bodies under rational basis review, particularly in the realm of tax and economic policy. It establishes that administrative convenience and the desire to avoid fiscal burdens are legitimate government interests capable of justifying classifications that result in significant monetary disparities among similarly situated individuals. The ruling distinguishes and narrows the application of Allegheny Pittsburgh, suggesting its holding applies to intentional, systemic, and long-term violations of a state's clear mandate for equal valuation, not to a one-time line-drawing decision made during a transition between two different financing schemes. Consequently, it makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed on equal protection claims challenging economic classifications unless they can demonstrate the classification is so arbitrary as to be completely irrational or involves a suspect class.
Unlock the full brief for Armour v. City of Indianapolis