Armour v. City of Indianapolis

Armour v. City of Indianapolis

Opinion

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 owners  [*676]  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, Amdt. 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.

Beginning in 1889, Indiana's Barrett Law (Law)  [****7] permitted cities to pay for  [***1003] public improvements, such as sewage projects, by “apportion[ing]” 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, n. 13 (Ind. 2000) (project's beneficiaries pay its costs). When a city built a Barrett Law project, the city's public works board would create [**2078]  an initial lot-owner assessment by “dividing the estimated total cost of the sewage works by the total number of lots.” §36-9-39-16(a). It might then adjust an individual assessment downward if the lot would benefit less than would others. §36-9-39-17(b). Upon completion of the project, the board would issue a final lot-by-lot assessment.

The Barrett Law permitted lot owners to pay the assessment either in a single lump sum or over time in installment  [*677]  payments (with interest). The City would collect installment payments “in the same manner as other taxes.” §36-9-37-6. The Barrett Law authorized 10-, 20-, or 30-year installment plans. §36-9-37-8.5(a) . Until fully paid, an assessment would constitute a lien against the property, permitting the city to initiate foreclosure proceedings in case of a default.  [****8] §§36-9-37-9(b), -22.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.