|
“Aren’t we giving the state the power to modify its contractual
obligations whenever it wants?” Justice Robert R. Thomas asked State
Solicitor General Carolyn Shapiro. “For instance, the state could
simply fail to fund the pension systems and them claim an emergency,
correct?”
Shapiro disagreed, saying: “Invoking the police powers is not
something that the state can do willy-nilly.”
The state contends the legislature was entitled to invoke police
powers to solve a fiscal emergency. The state says shaky finances
are making it hard to fund basic services, which is why it was
necessary to raise the retirement age and suspend retiree
cost-of-living increases.
Lawyers representing unions and other plaintiffs suing to overturn
the law said the legislature had no such right.
“It is clear that the pension clause and the pensions are not
subject to the police powers,” said attorney Aaron Maduff with
Maduff & Maduff in Chicago.
In November, a county court tossed the law. At Wednesday's hearing,
the high court met to hear the state's appeal.
The stakes are high for Illinois, which has the worst-funded pension
system and the lowest credit ratings of all 50 states and says
pension costs were making it impossible to fund services such as
healthcare and public safety. Most of the justices asked no
questions, making it hard to predict an outcome.
In her opening statement, Shapiro told the court that overturning
the pension reform law "would tie the state's hands when its need to
act is most pressing."
The court chamber was packed with politicians, union leaders and
other observers. After the hearing, State Senator Kwame Raoul, a
leader of the pension reform effort, compared a prior high court
case that protected retiree health care benefits with "tea leaves"
that may determine how the court will rule on pension reform.
The Democratic lawmaker said the state worsened its pension problem
by not making adequate contributions.
A ruling is expected this spring. Ty Fahner, a former Illinois
Attorney General and a partner at law firm Mayer Brown in Chicago,
said it was unclear what the court would decide.
[to top of second column] |
"There are seven justices and only two of them asked questions,” he
said.
Michael Freeborn, a union lawyer, said he did not think the justices
would accept the state’s argument.
“The state’s argument that there is a fiscal emergency rings a
little hollow,” Freeborn said. He said state had demonstrated poor
fiscal management, citing a decision to allow temporary higher
income tax rates to partially roll back on Jan. 1.
The case also has ramifications for Chicago, which is defending a
2014 state law that reset city pensions.
In a separate case last July, the state supreme court ruled 6-1 that
healthcare benefits to retirees were protected by the constitutional
prohibition against pension cuts.
Besides Maduff, attorney Gino DiVito of Tabet DiVito & Rothstein in
Chicago also represented the unions and other parties that sued to
void the law.
(Reporting by Karen Pierog, Hilary Russ and Megan Davies. Editing by
Phil Berlowitz, Andre Grenon and David Gregorio)
[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
