Annexation update: Bloomington mayor will ask Indiana Supreme Court to overturn Court of Appeals ruling in constitutional case

In late February, a three-member panel from the Indiana Court of Appeals delivered a unanimous opinion affirming the ruling of the special lower court judge in Bloomington’s constitutional lawsuit over annexation.

The ruling went against Bloomington, which meant that unless the Supreme Court were to accept the case and decide it in Bloomington’s favor, the annexation in Area 1C, Area 2, Area 3, Area 4, and Area 5 was stopped.

On Thursday, the Bloomington mayor Kerry Thomson announced in a news release what most observers had expected—that she will file a petition of transfer, asking that Indiana’s Supreme Court consider the case.

The news release quotes Thomson saying, “[W]e intend to ask the Indiana Supreme Court to consider this case and provide clarity on the fundamental rights of local governments to govern, plan, and sustain their communities.” Her statement continues, “Urban growth is not a hypothetical future event—it is happening now and has been for more than 20 years in Bloomington without an expansion of our boundaries. Bloomington is a regional economic hub, serving as a center for jobs, education, healthcare, and commerce—not just for city residents but for people throughout Monroe County and beyond.”

Thomson’s statement adds, “However, when a city is prevented from expanding its boundaries to align with the reality of its growth, it faces financial strain, infrastructure limitations, and weakened services—all of which impact both city residents and the surrounding county.”

Thursday’s news release indicates that the petition of transfer will be filed in early April.

The legal controversy involves the status of a 2019 law, passed by the state legislature, which voided certain waivers of a property owner's right to remonstrate against annexation. Remonstrance, the act of property owners formally opposing annexation, played a crucial role in Bloomington’s annexation attempts.

The remonstration waivers were signed by many property owners in exchange for a city sewer connection. The bargain struck by property owners, inherited by subsequent owners of the land, was this: They got the ability to purchase sewer service from city of Bloomington utilities, in exchange for not remonstrating against a future annexation of their property into the city.

Based on its constitutional claim, Bloomington argued that the waivers were still valid despite the 2019 law. And if the waivers were still valid, then many remonstrance signatures were not valid due to the waivers.

In affirming the lower court’s ruling, the Court of Appeals held that Bloomington, as a municipality, lacks enforceable rights under the contract clauses of the federal or state constitutions, to challenge the 2019 law as an impairment of its contracts with landowners.

The court also found that even if Bloomington could challenge the 2019 law, the 2019 law does not substantially impair Bloomington's contracts—because it does not disturb the principal elements of the contracts, and municipal annexation is traditionally regulated by the state.

The history of Bloomington's current annexation effort goes back to 2017.