Here's more on Armour v. City of Indianapolis, No. 11-161 (June 4, 2012), the case in which a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court held that the City's decision to forgive the balance owing for homeowners who had not fully paid the sewer assessement, while not issuing refunds to their neighbors who had already paid in full.
- How Convenient (from Library of Law and Liberty)
- SCOTUS Likes "Moral Hazard" - Conscientious Property Onwers Get Screwed Again (from Gideon's Trumpet)
- Opinion Recap: Not so equal tax equality (from SCOTUSblog)
- Armour v. Indianapolis: "Money Down the Sewer" (from The Foundry)
The last article got us to thinking: if the primary reason that the Court held that the refusal to provide refunds was not irrational was that it was too much administrative hassle to cut the checks, doesn't that mean the tail is wagging the dog? Aren't the mechanics of returning the money secondary -- or even irrelevant -- to the question of whether the City can legally keep it? If the Court can conclude that it is not irrational to keep money because it is too much humbug to return it, doesn't that just take you in a big logical circle?
