Niki Kelly has an article on the oral arguments in the Toll Road hearing before Indiana’s Supreme Court. From her write up, it would seem that the Supreme Court might rule against the Plaintiffs, or arrive at a 2 – 2 split which would leave the trial court ruling standing by default, not so much because the Plaintiffs’ challenge fails on its merits, but simply to avoid opening the can of worms they’ve been asked to open. Special legislation — the constitutionally prohibited act of passing a law specific to one group of people or area of the State when more general legislation is possible — is probably the genie that’s been let out of the bottle. The legislature has been passing special legislation under the fig leaf of population parameters for so long that the Supreme Court might be reluctant to wander into the snares that await if it tries to put an end to the practice. I’m not as familiar with State finance issues, but I imagine they’re reluctant to tell the General Assembly how to spend taxpayer money even if the Constitution requires the General Assembly to retire the public debt before it does anything else.
On the other hand, Matthew Tully has a column suggesting it’s tricky business trying to read into Justices thoughts from the questions they ask. Very true.
Theodore Kim has an article for the Indy Star. Lesley Stedman Weidenbener has an article for the Louisville Courier Journal. Mike Smith has an article for the Associated Press.
The Indiana Law Blog has a post on the arguments and provided a link to the Real Audio video of the oral arguments. Abdul at Indiana Barrister attended the arguments in person as did Michael Ausbrook at INCourts.
Actually, I wasn’t there. I was tuned in by webcast–which, as I’ve said elsewhere, is one of the absolute best services the appellate courts provide the public.
I love small arguments, but I have to say, with so much at stake, the arguments were amazingly boring, though very well presented by the lawyers.