The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the case of Armour, et al., v. Indianapolis, et al (docket 11-161). That’s a lawyerly way of saying that the Supreme Court will hear the matter. Some cases have what’s called “original jurisdiction” in the Supreme Court but most do not. To be heard at the Supreme Court level without having original jurisdiction requires the losing party at the appellate level to file a petition seeking a review of the case. If the Supreme Court grants the petition and decides to hear the matter, it’s called a writ of certiorari. And that’s what happened here.
The case in Armour involves the constitutional duty of local governments to treat taxpayers equally. In this particular case, residents were assessed a sewer tax in the Northern Estates subdivision of Indianapolis. Residents had the option of paying the tax of nearly $10,000 upfront or over a period of 10, 20 or 30 years together with interest. The majority of homeowners opted to pay out in installments.
As governments are wont to do, this one changed its plan. The City Council in Indianapolis decided on a new plan which involved a flat fee to connect to the sewers at a lower cost. As a nod to those homeowners who still owed a balance under the previous installment plan, the local public works forgave any balance due. Nice, right? But what about those homeowners who had opted to pay in advance? The City decided those homeowners were out of luck and the Indiana Supreme Court agreed.
On its face, the specific question is whether it was okay for the city to keep the money that was already paid in by some taxpayers. But the bigger question – and what the Supreme Court will be expected to answer – is whether governments should be required to issue refunds when they switch course on a project.
Amicus briefs were filed by the Tax Foundation (brief downloads as a pdf) and the National Taxpayer’s Union (brief downloads as a pdf). Amicus briefs are most often filed by an advocacy group in support of a position when the group isn’t actually a party to the litigation. The idea, as in this case, is to present information on an issue that might have broader implications beyond the specific fact pattern outlined in the case.
In the case of Armour, the hope is that the Supreme Court will sort out what’s fair when it comes to taxpayers, assessments and refunds. Does the law require that all taxpayers be treated the same at all stages of collections? And if the rules of the game change (or the reasoning behind the original plan), like they did in Indianapolis, how far must the government go to ensure that everyone is on equal footing? Depending on how broadly the matter is approached, the results could be far reaching.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in Armour beginning February 2012.
