Major Moves
I sat through the Indiana Supreme Court hearing this afternoon on Major Moves. I felt like I was back in law school listening to the most important, but boring, lecture of my first year. It also didn’t help the hearing took place at a time when I usually take my afternoon nap.
The arguments were the same as before. The Plaintiffs said the legislation was unconstitutional and the Court should not rush to judgment and overturn the lower court’s ruling because the issues to be litigated were too important to stand. The State argued that any delay could result in the loss of the $3.8 billion it was slated to get from the foreign company that would lease the road.
My analysis from the Justices’ questions led me to believe that they were very concerned about getting involved in this matter. One Justice wondered whether a decision could lead to the Courts getting involved in every legislative decision while another wondered whether there was a way the State could have structured the deal so it did not have to get involved in the first place.
And while it is treading on very dangerous water to try to predict what a court will do, I think I can say from watching Tuesday’s hearing that I would not be surprised if the Court pulled a King Solomon and split the difference and ruled the Toll Road provision constitutional, while remanding the rest of the legislation back to the appellate court for a full hearing.
Just a note, Justice Brent E. Dickson removed himself from the case without explanation. My sources tell me a possible financial conflict of interest might have been the reason. That leaves four Justices on the bench and a 2-2 decision would result in the upholding of the lower court ruling.
