Holcomb v. City of Bloomington

Decision Date15 December 2020
Docket NumberSupreme Court Case No. 19S-PL-304
Parties Eric HOLCOMB, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Indiana, Appellant (Defendant), v. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, Appellee (Plaintiff).
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Thomas M. Fisher, Solicitor General, Kian J. Hudson, Deputy Solicitor General, Julia C. Payne, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: Michael Rouker, City Attorney, Larry D. Allen, Assistant City Attorney, Bloomington, Indiana

Goff, Justice.

In 2017, the legislature passed a statute stopping Bloomington's proposed annexation of several areas of land and prohibiting the city from trying to annex the areas for five years. Bloomington, which had been in the process of educating and engaging the public about the proposed annexation but had not yet sought formal adoption of its plan, challenged the constitutionality of the statute in a declaratory judgment action against Governor Holcomb. The trial court ultimately found the statute unconstitutional. On appeal, the parties present us with two issues: (1) whether Bloomington can seek declaratory relief in this case from the Governor, and (2) whether the statute is unconstitutional.

First, we conclude that Bloomington can challenge the statute in this declaratory judgment action against the Governor. Because Bloomington has suffered an injury, and due to the unique way in which the statute was drafted, Bloomington's suit satisfies the requirements of a declaratory judgment action. Prudential concerns further compel us to reach the merits of this case.

Second, we conclude that the statute is unconstitutional special legislation in violation of Article 4, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution because the legislature enacted a special law—one that targeted only Bloomington—when it could have enacted a law that applied generally throughout Indiana. We thus affirm the trial court on these issues.

Factual and Procedural History

In early February 2017, Bloomington Mayor John Hamilton announced plans for a proposed annexation of several areas of land. He and his team then began the regimented, statutory process that they hoped would result in the City of Bloomington Common Council formally adopting ordinances annexing the land.

At a February 15 meeting, the City Council considered whether to adopt resolutions formally initiating the annexation process. Over the course of four hours, the City Council discussed the proposed annexation of each area and heard from members of Mayor Hamilton's team, Monroe County officials, and members of the public. The City Council ultimately adopted the initiating resolutions.

As required by statute, city officials then published and mailed notices of six public-outreach meetings to be held in March at the Bloomington City Hall. Officials were available to answer questions at these "open-house format" meetings, and members of the public were invited to review additional information regarding the proposed annexation.

On March 29, the City Council considered whether it should formally introduce—but not yet adopt—the proposed annexation ordinances. Mayor Hamilton spoke in favor of the ordinances and, as at the February 15 meeting, the City Council also heard from members of the mayor's team, Monroe County officials, and members of the public. All told, the City Council spent over six hours at this meeting discussing and considering the introduction of the ordinances. It ultimately declined to introduce the ordinance proposing to annex an area northeast of Bloomington, but it introduced the other annexation ordinances.

Continuing to move through the steps in the statutory annexation process, city officials planned to hold a public hearing on May 31 in a high-school gym regarding the introduced annexation ordinances, and they hoped that the City Council would officially adopt the ordinances on June 30. But legislative developments would eventually put a stop to these plans.

While Bloomington was taking its initial steps toward annexation, the General Assembly passed legislation, codified at Indiana Code section 36-4-3-11.8 ("Section 11.8"), concerning the annexation plan. Section 11.8 cut off Bloomington's proposed annexation and prohibited Bloomington from trying to annex the same areas for the next five years.

In response, the City of Bloomington did not hold the planned public hearing on the annexation ordinances but instead brought this suit against the Governor, in his official capacity, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, Bloomington sought declarations that Section 11.8 constitutes special legislation that violates Article 4, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution and that Section 11.8 violates Article 4, Section 19's single-subject rule. The Governor sought to dismiss Bloomington's complaint, arguing that he was not a proper defendant because he does not enforce the statute, but the trial court denied the motion. Both parties eventually sought summary judgment. The trial court reiterated its prior finding that the Governor was a proper defendant; declared Section 11.8 unconstitutional under Article 4, Sections 19 and 23 of the Indiana Constitution ; and entered summary judgment in favor of Bloomington.

The Governor filed a direct appeal, over which this Court has mandatory jurisdiction pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 4(A)(1)(b). We now affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Standard of Review

The issues in this case—whether Bloomington can bring this declaratory judgment action against the Governor and whether Section 11.8 is unconstitutional—turn on legal questions such as the proper interpretation and application of statutes and constitutional provisions. See City of Hammond v. Herman & Kittle Props., Inc. , 119 N.E.3d 70, 78 (Ind. 2019) ; City of Lawrence Utils. Serv. Bd. v. Curry , 68 N.E.3d 581, 585 (Ind. 2017). "When ‘the challenge to summary judgment raises questions of law, we review them de novo.’ " City of Lawrence Utils. Serv. Bd. , 68 N.E.3d at 585 (citation omitted). However, a statute comes "clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing." State v. Buncich , 51 N.E.3d 136, 141 (Ind. 2016).

Discussion and Decision

The annexation process generally involves three stages: (1) adoption of an annexation ordinance by a municipality's legislative body; (2) an opportunity for affected landowners to object to, or remonstrate against, the annexation; and (3) judicial review triggered by remonstrance. Town of Fortville v. Certain Fortville Annexation Territory Landowners , 51 N.E.3d 1195, 1197 (Ind. 2016). See generally Ind. Code ch. 36-4-3 (2017). Before a municipality can complete the first stage by adopting an annexation ordinance, it must take a series of statutorily prescribed steps that include conducting an outreach program, introducing the ordinance, and holding a public hearing. I.C. § 36-4-3-1.7, I.C. § 36-4-3-2.1. In this case, Bloomington was moving through the steps toward ordinance adoption when the legislature passed the budget bill that codified Section 11.8.

Although the proposed annexation ordinances had not yet been adopted, the legislature intervened in the process by enacting Section 11.8 to stop Bloomington's—and only Bloomington's—proposed annexation. The legislature achieved this purpose by first limiting the applicability of Section 11.8 so that it would apply to Bloomington's proposed annexation alone. See I.C. § 36-4-3-11.8(a)(d) (limiting its applicability to certain annexation ordinances introduced between January 1, 2017 and June 30, 2017—when Bloomington's were introduced on March 29—that had not been adopted as of the statute's effective date of April 30, 2017). Then, the legislature declared that such an annexation ordinance falling within its scope—namely, Bloomington's—"is void and the annexation action is terminated." I.C. § 36-4-3-11.8(d). It further prohibited a municipality from taking "any further action to annex any of the property to which this section applies until after June 30, 2022, including introducing another annexation ordinance covering some or all of the property covered by this section." Id.

With Section 11.8 blocking Bloomington from moving forward with its proposed annexation, the parties raise the same two issues as before the trial court: whether the Governor is the proper defendant and whether Section 11.8 is unconstitutional. First, we conclude that, through no fault of the Governor's but because of the way the legislature drafted Section 11.8 and because of the prudential concerns involved, Bloomington can bring its declaratory judgment action against the Governor. Second, we conclude that Section 11.8 is unconstitutional special legislation in violation of Article 4, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution.1 We address each conclusion in more detail below.

I. Bloomington can bring this declaratory judgment action against the Governor.

In addressing whether the Governor is the proper defendant in this declaratory judgment action, we proceed in three parts. In Part I.A., we describe the Governor's specific argument challenging the justiciability of this suit and lay out the standard that controls this case. In Part I.B., we consider whether this case is nonjusticiable based on the Governor's argument that he does not enforce Section 11.8. In Part I.C., we determine whether this case is nonjusticiable due to prudential concerns. Ultimately, based on all this analysis, we conclude that this case is justiciable, and Bloomington can bring this declaratory judgment action.

A. As a threshold matter, we need only consider the Governor's specific justiciability challenge to Bloomington's declaratory judgment action, not broad principles of standing.

The Governor's preliminary argument that he is not the proper defendant is a very specific, narrow attack on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Solarize Ind., Inc. v. S. Ind. Gas & Elec. Co.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • March 8, 2022
    ...post , at 221—once again calling for Indiana to adopt a federal standing limitation, see Holcomb v. City of Bloomington , 158 N.E.3d 1250, 1267–68 (Ind. 2020) (Slaughter, J., dissenting); Horner , 125 N.E.3d at 615 (Slaughter, J., concurring); Seo v. State , 148 N.E.3d 952, 969 (Ind. 2020) ......
  • Solarize Ind., Inc. v. S. Ind., Gas & Elec. Co.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • March 8, 2022
    ...requirement," post, at 1- once again calling for Indiana to adopt a federal standing limitation, see Holcomb v. City of Bloomington, 158 N.E.3d 1250, 1267-68 (Ind. 2020) (Slaughter, J., dissenting); Horner, 125 N.E.3d at 615 (Slaughter, J., concurring); Seo v. State, 148 N.E.3d 952, 969 (In......
  • The Health and Hosp. Corp. of Marion Cnty. v. Dial
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • July 30, 2021
    ...relief, it risks encroaching on the powers properly entrusted to the legislative and executive branches. Holcomb v. City of Bloomington, 158 N.E.3d 1250, 1267-68 (Ind. 2020) (Slaughter, J., dissenting) (discussing Horner, 125 N.E.3d at 589). Therefore, a court cannot perform its function an......
  • Health & Hosp. Corp. of Marion Cnty. v. Dial
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • July 30, 2021
    ...risks encroaching on the powers properly entrusted to the legislative and executive branches. Holcomb v. City of Bloomington , 158 N.E.3d 1250, 1267-68 (Ind. 2020) (Slaughter, J., dissenting) (discussing Horner , 125 N.E.3d at 589 ). Therefore, a court cannot perform its function and award ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT