The Illinois Supreme Court announced on Thursday a specific date and time for oral arguments in the state’s high-profile pension lawsuit.
The arguments will be held on March 11 at 2:30 pm, CST, according to the Associated Press.
Unions, retirees and retiree groups are suing the state over a pension overhaul passed in late 2013. The law cuts benefits for many public workers, who are suing the state over the constitutionality of the law.
Read more Pension360 coverage of the lawsuit here.
When the lawsuit against Illinois’ pension reform law went to the Supreme Court, the Court obliged the state’s request for an expedited process.
The state, win or lose, wants the court’s decision as soon as possible.
But unions and public employees fighting the law are now asking the court to slow down the process. They say they need more time to respond to arguments presented in briefs filed by nearly a dozen groups in support of the law last week.
From Northern Public Radio:
Unions and others fighting to prevent Illinois’ pension law from taking effect are asking the state Supreme Court to ease up on its accelerated timeline.A Sangamon County judge ruled the measure unconstitutional. But Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed paperwork earlier this month that says the state can use “police powers” to cut pensions.
Ten other groups filed briefs backing Madigan’s position.
John Fitzgerald is an attorney who represents retired public school teachers. He says lawyers need more time to respond to all of those additional arguments.
Fitzgerald says his side is still confident reducing benefits is illegal.
“Although we believe that the arguments raised by the amici need to be evaluated and responded to, we do not believe that any of those arguments have any merit; we do not believe that the amici have raised any arguments that should change the outcome of this case.”
The lawyers are asking for an additional month to file briefs with the court. Currently, the briefs are due Feb. 16.
In 2015, the Illinois Supreme Court will decide the legality of the state’s pension overhaul that reduced benefits of public workers.
But if legal challenges to similar laws in other states are any indication, the chances of Illinois’ pension reform being upheld are slim, according to a Reuters analysis.
From Reuters:
Court rulings in Arizona show that Illinois, which has the worst funded pensions of any U.S. state, may not have much chance.
The problem is that Illinois, Arizona and New York states all provided public workers, such as police, teachers and even judges, near iron-clad pension guarantees that were embedded in their state constitutions.
Two Arizona laws enacted in 2011 to increase employees’ pension contributions, restrict certain people from receiving pensions, and institute a new formula for calculating benefit increases, floundered in the face of legal challenges. One law, challenged by teachers, was overturned by a Maricopa County judge in 2012, while another, contested by retired judges, was tossed out by the Arizona Supreme Court in February this year. The courts tied their rulings to constitutional language that membership in public pension systems is a contractual relationship, and retirement benefits cannot be “diminished or impaired.”
Illinois and its Republican Governor-elect Bruce Rauner are likely to find themselves in similar bind to Arizona where the only answer appears to be a long-shot effort to amend the state constitution.
“There aren’t many options at this point,” said Jean-Pierre Aubry, assistant director of state and local research at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, referring to both states. “The (pension) payments need to be made or the constitution needs to be changed.”
Altering the constitution, however, isn’t a practical option. From Reuters:
Altering the Illinois Constitution’s 1970 pension provision would be a massive undertaking, requiring a three-fifths vote of lawmakers in the House and Senate to get it on the ballot. It would then need approval from three-fifths of voters or a majority of individuals actually voting in a general election — not an easy proposition as people often don’t vote on every item on the ballot and given Illinois is a largely Democratic state with activist public unions.
Illinois’ state-level pension systems were collectively 42.9 percent funded as of June 30, 2014.
The Illinois Supreme Court on Wednesday complied with a request by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan to fast track the hearing over the state’s pension reform law, which a lower court found unconstitutional.
From Reuters:
The court ordered public labor unions and retiree groups challenging the law and the state to file their briefs in January and February with oral arguments to be scheduled in March. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan had asked the court last week to speed up the appeal process.
The state asked for oral arguments as early as Jan. 22 and no later than March 10 to enable Illinois’ upcoming budget to incorporate about $1 billion in cost-savings under the law, or adequate spending cuts or tax increases to offset those savings.
The pension reform law was supposed to go into effect on June 1 but was put on hold by Sangamon County Circuit Court Judge John Belz in May pending his Nov. 21 ruling in five consolidated lawsuits. The state’s new fiscal year begins July 1 and the legislature usually passes a budget by May 31.
The law’s opponents asked the supreme court on Tuesday not to speed up the case.
The law raises retirement ages and suspends COLAs for some workers, and makes state contributions to the pension system enforceable by the Illinois Supreme Court.
Illinois’ pension reform law is going to get its day in court soon. A judge on Wednesday scheduled arguments for and against the law for next month. That means a final ruling on the law could be made by the end of the year.
The law’s opponents and defenders have one thing in common: they both want a ruling on the law’s legality sooner than later.
From Reuters:
Sangamon County Circuit Court Judge John Belz, who is overseeing five consolidated lawsuits filed by labor unions and others, set Nov. 20 for arguments for and against the constitutionality of the law passed by the Illinois legislature last December.
Public labor union coalition We Are One Illinois and other parties have been seeking an expedited ruling in the wake of a July 3 Illinois Supreme Court decision in an unrelated case that determined health care for retired state workers is a pension benefit protected by a provision in the state constitution.
The same provision, which prohibits the impairment or diminishment of retirement benefits for public workers, is the focus of the lawsuits against the state’s pension reform law. The new law, which is currently on hold, reduces and suspends cost-of-living increases for pensions, raises retirement ages and limits the salaries on which pensions are based.
In documents filed with the court on Friday, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan argued that the high court’s July 3 ruling only dealt with retiree health care subsidies being part of the contractual relationship Illinois has with members of the state’s public pension systems.
“The court did not address whether such benefits are immune from the state’s exercise of its police powers. That issue was not before the court,” Madigan’s court filing noted.
In its defense of the pension reform law, Illinois is leaning heavily on its so-called police powers trumping the constitutional provision against reducing public employee retirement benefits. Those powers include the state’s ability to properly fund education, healthcare and public safety. Those sectors would experience substantial cuts if the state’s already large pension burden grows, Madigan said in the filings.
We Are Illinois released the following statement on Wednesday:
“As we have always maintained and the recent Kanerva decision confirms, the pension protection clause of the Illinois Constitution is absolute and without exception. There is no merit to the State’s purported justification for the unconstitutional diminishments and impairments that SB1 imposes. We are hopeful for a swift resolution in the plaintiffs’ favor, so that we can work with legislators willing to develop a fair—and legal—solution to our state’s challenges, together.”