Questions from Supreme Court justices point to heart of annexation law case involving Bloomington: Was the governor the right person to sue?

In 2017, Bloomington filed suit against Indiana’s governor, Eric Holcomb, over a law enacted by the state legislature as a part of the biennial budget bill.

As Bloomington’s city attorney, Mike Rouker, described the legislation on Thursday morning, during oral arguments in front of Indiana’s Supreme Court, the law “prohibited Bloomington and only Bloomington from taking any further action toward its ongoing municipal annexation…” Continue reading “Questions from Supreme Court justices point to heart of annexation law case involving Bloomington: Was the governor the right person to sue?”

Thursday morning: Internet stream for Bloomington’s arguments in front of Indiana Supreme Court on annexation law

On Thursday morning, oral arguments will be heard by Indiana’s Supreme Court in the case involving Bloomington’s constitutional challenge to a 2017 law that suspended its in-progress annexation process.

Bloomington won a favorable ruling on both of its constitutional arguments in the lower court. Briefly put, the court agreed with Bloomington that the law was impermissible special legislation and that it violated the single-subject rule.

It’s Gov. Eric Holcomb, the defendant in the case, who has appealed to the state’s highest court.

People who want to watch the city argue the case in front of the state’s highest court can watch the online video stream on Thursday, Jan. 9, starting at 8:58 a.m. That’s two minutes before the five justices are scheduled to hear arguments.

City attorney Mike Rouker will present Bloomington’s case, as he did during the lower court hearing in late March last year. Continue reading “Thursday morning: Internet stream for Bloomington’s arguments in front of Indiana Supreme Court on annexation law”

Oral Arguments in front of Supreme Court scheduled for Bloomington’s lawsuit over annexation law: Jan. 9, 2020

Oral arguments have now been scheduled by Indiana’s Supreme Court in the lawsuit that Bloomington filed against Gov. Eric Holcomb in May 2017.

cropped seal of Supreme Court Screen Shot 2019-11-15 at 10.26.29 AM

Th case stems from a law enacted by the state legislature that year, which effectively ended Bloomington’s annexation process that was underway.

Each side will have a chance to argue in front of the state’s highest court on Jan. 9 next year.

The state legislature incorporated a law on annexation into its biennial budget bill for 2017, which effectively ended the process Bloomington was working through at the time to add geographic area to the city.

In May 2017, Bloomington filed suit challenging the law on two separate constitutional grounds—that it violated the state constitution’s single-subject rule, and that it violated the constitutional provision against impermissible specific legislation.

The Monroe County circuit court’s ruling, made in April of this year, was in favor of Bloomington on both of its arguments. The state appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court. Final briefs were filed with the Supreme Court at the end of September.

Neither the city nor the state filed a motion asking for oral arguments to be held. But the Supreme Court’s order, signed by its chief justice, Loretta Rush on Nov. 13, states, “The Court has determined the above-captioned case merits oral argument.”

The total time allotted for arguments in front of the five-member Supreme Court is 40 minutes, to be divided equally at 20 minutes a side. The location of the arguments will be in the Supreme Court’s chambers at the Statehouse in Indianapolis. The appointed hour is 9 a.m.

[Previous coverage by The Beacon on Bloomington v. Holcomb ]

Bloomington’s wait begins: State’s appeal of annexation ruling now fully briefed

cropped brighter statehouseIMG_2411
Indiana state capitol in Indianapolis, late August 2019. (Dave Askins/Beacon)

Continuing its methodical path through the judicial system is an appeal by the governor to the Indiana Supreme Court. The state is seeking to  overturn a lower court ruling made in April, which found that a 2017 law blocking Bloomington’s annexation process was unconstitutional on two separate grounds.

On Friday, the State of Indiana filed its reply to Bloomington’s response to the state’s initial papers. With that, according to the state’s online document system, the case in front of the state’s highest court is now “fully briefed.” Continue reading “Bloomington’s wait begins: State’s appeal of annexation ruling now fully briefed”

Bloomington responds to State of Indiana’s appeal brief in 2017 annexation case: “Nonsense.”

On Wednesday, Bloomington filed with the Indiana Supreme Court its response to the State of Indiana’s appeal of a lower court ruling made in April, which found that a 2017 law blocking Bloomington’s annexation process was unconstitutional on two separate grounds.

Nonsense Screen Shot 2019-08-29 at 9.48.03 PM
The word “nonsense” is highlighted in blue in this screenshot from Bloomington’s brief filed with the Supreme Court on Aug. 28, 2019, but not in the actual brief.

Bloomington’s brief uses words like “nonsense,” “preposterous,” and “outlandish” in its response to some of the State’s arguments.

The law, enacted by the state legislature in its 2017 session, was included as part of the biennial budget bill that year. The law’s inclusion in the budget bill is one reason the Monroe County Circuit Court found it to be unconstitutional. The annexation law violated the state constitution’s “single subject” rule for legislation, according to the circuit court.

The circuit court found that the 2017 annexation law also violated the state constitution’s prohibition against “special legislation.” It’s a prohibition that doesn’t rule out legislation affecting just one municipality, which the 2017 annexation law does. Both sides agree that the 2017 law affected only Bloomington and was designed that way. The legal question is whether the special law falls within the definition of “permissible special legislation”—a kind of question on which courts have ruled in the past.

So the first briefs, which have now been filed by both sides with the Indiana Supreme Court, include dozens of citations to previous rulings on the question of what counts as permissible special legislation.

Among the previous cases to which the two sides are giving different interpretations is Dortch v. Lugar (1971), which allowed for the Unigov plan for Indianapolis and Marion County to be implemented. Continue reading “Bloomington responds to State of Indiana’s appeal brief in 2017 annexation case: “Nonsense.””

Question of burden adds some flavor to oral arguments in Bloomington’s annexation lawsuit

At a Tuesday afternoon hearing lasting around an hour, the two sides in an ongoing annexation lawsuit between the City of Bloomington and Gov. Eric Holcomb presented oral arguments.

CZ Justice Center
The Charlotte Zietlow Justice Center at 301 N. College, where a March 26 hearing on the City of Bloomington’s annexation lawsuit took place.

Judge Frank Nardi did not issue a ruling from the bench. The March 26 hearing was held at the Charlotte Zietlow Justice Center in downtown Bloomington.

The City of Bloomington filed the lawsuit in 2017 over the state legislature’s decision to build into its budget bill a change to state annexation law. It was a change that effectively singled out Bloomington and paused any annexation plans by the city for five years.

Bloomington contends that because the new annexation law was incorporated into the 2017 biennial budget bill, it violates the State Constitution’s requirement that legislation be confined to a single subject.

Bloomington’s lawsuit also states that the new annexation law violates the State Constitution’s clause prohibiting “special” legislation. The constitutional claim involving special legislation hinges not merely on the fact that the new annexation law applies only to Bloomington. The claim arises from the city’s contention that the attempted justification for the law’s unique application is not adequate.

To some extent, the two sides spent their time on Tuesday rehashing arguments they’d already submitted to the court.

The oral presentations, however, featured a slightly different flavor from the written briefs—especially on the part of the city, and its claim that the new annexation law is unconstitutional under the special legislation clause. The ingredient that city attorney Mike Rouker added to his oral remarks was “burden.” Continue reading “Question of burden adds some flavor to oral arguments in Bloomington’s annexation lawsuit”

Holcomb admits allegation that he was elected governor of Indiana, and other insights from court filings in Bloomington annexation lawsuit

In mid-January, Judge Frank Nardi requested an extra courtroom at the Monroe County Circuit Court for a half-day hearing on the afternoon of March 26, for a case filed by the City of Bloomington against the governor of Indiana.

Even though Judge Nardi is not expected to issue a decision from the bench on Tuesday, the hearing is likely to lead eventually to the first ruling on the substance of the case. It was was filed almost two years ago and deals with Bloomington’s annexation efforts.
Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 2.53.40 PM

The lawsuit stems from a 2017 action by the state’s General Assembly to build into its budget bill a change to state annexation law that effectively singled out Bloomington and paused any annexation plans by the city for five years. The court documents in the case are accessible to the public through MyCase. (Search by case for 53C06-1705-PL-001138. Or download most of the court records in a single compressed file here: City of Bloomington vs. Holcomb.)

Bloomington filed a lawsuit, contending that the General Assembly violated two different parts of the state’s constitution: One limiting bills to single subjects and another prohibiting special legislation.

This article offers a general overview of those constitutional questions and includes a review of some preliminary rulings and points of agreement between the two parties, as well as some of the technical maneuvers that have taken place before the March 26 hearing. Continue reading “Holcomb admits allegation that he was elected governor of Indiana, and other insights from court filings in Bloomington annexation lawsuit”

Monroe County Public Library a source of map collections showing Bloomington’s past annexations

In 2017, Bloomington began the process of annexing area into the city that would have increased the land area of the city by about 60 percent.

HistoryofAnnexations1997-2004

Later that year, the state’s General Assembly built into the budget bill a change to annexation law that effectively singled out Bloomington and paused any annexation plans for five years.

Bloomington filed a lawsuit, contending that the General Assembly violated two different parts of the state’s constitution: One limiting bills to single topics and another prohibiting special legislation.

On Tuesday, March 26, the two sides will be giving oral arguments in front of Judge Frank M. Nardi to complement the written arguments and counterarguments they’ve already submitted to the court. Continue reading “Monroe County Public Library a source of map collections showing Bloomington’s past annexations”