Oral arguments have now been scheduled by Indiana’s Supreme Court in the lawsuit that Bloomington filed against Gov. Eric Holcomb in May 2017.
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 ]
This was a total takeover. Residents were calling and coming into the office to file a remonstrate. They stated they did not want to be in the city. Waivers were placed on homeowners who never knew they had signed this until they received a notification. Over 50% of those waivers were not filed in the city or the clerks office. Most of them were over 15 yrs.
The city Fire chief and I had a conversation concerning this because of the amount of fire tax Van Buren would loose. The city didn’t want our firefighters, our equipment or buildings. This meant in addition to the city tax increase the residents would bare the burden of paying additional tax for new buildings and new equipment. Most of the residents live on a limited income giving them no choice other to sell their homes or have them taken by a tax sale.