Property assessment forgiveness
Armour v. City of Indianapolis
In brief
Indianapolis won: the Supreme Court upheld the city's decision to forgive unpaid balances without refunding homeowners who had paid in full.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-3 · June 4, 2012 · Opinion by Justice Breyer
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court upheld the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling that Indianapolis could forgive homeowners’ unpaid Barrett Law sewer-assessment balances without refunding those who had paid in full.
- Who it affects
- Indianapolis can forgive remaining balances without refunding homeowners who already paid in full.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
It found the difference had a rational basis—a reasonable justification—and did not violate the Constitution’s equal-protection guarantee.
The dispute grew out of Indianapolis homeowners' sewer assessments under the Barrett Law.
Question presented
Did the City of Indianapolis violate equal protection by forgiving only outstanding Barrett Law assessment balances, and not those of property owners who paid in full?
What the Court decided
Holding
The City had a rational basis for its distinction and thus did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. 946 N. E. 2d 553, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The Court's reasoning
The Court said Indianapolis had a reasonable basis for forgiving unpaid balances but not refunding payments already made, so the policy did not violate equal protection.
The vote
From the opinions
“The case affirmed the common-sense proposition that the Equal Protection Clause is violated by state action that deprives a citizen of even “rough equality in tax treatment,” when state law itself specifically provides that all the affected taxpayers are in the same category for tax purposes.”
What's next
The decision leaves Indiana's judgment in place and resolves this appeal; no additional court or agency action is identified.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Armour
Opinion added: Armour
More questions
- Why did Chief Justice Roberts disagree?
- He argued that equal protection protects taxpayers from unequal treatment when state law places them in the same category.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.