“Justice Robert R. Thomas peppered solicitor general Carolyn Shapiro during oral arguments over the constitutionality of a 2013 law that cuts retirement benefits in a 30-year plan to slay a $111 billion deficit. State employees and retirees challenged it, arguing that the state constitution prohibits action to ‘impair or diminish’ the benefits of the contractual pension agreement.
“The state counters that it can resort to ‘police powers’ to trump the constitution in moments of economic peril. The peril, they say, can largely be traced to the recession of 2008, which battered the value of the pensions' portfolios and caused other problems.
“But until questioned about it, Shapiro didn't mention that for decades, governors and legislators have given short-shrift to annual contribution obligations — including as recently as 10 years ago, well after the crisis was widely recognized, by skipping $2.3 billion in payments.
“‘If the court holds that the state can invoke its police powers to violate core constitutional guarantees to respond to an emergency that at least arguably the state itself created, then aren't we giving the state the power to modify its contractual obligations whenever it wants?’ Thomas asked Shapiro. ‘For instance, the state could simply fail to fund the pension systems and then claim an emergency.’
“Shapiro repeatedly emphasized the narrow conditions under which the government may assume such control — when it needs to ‘address an important public purpose,’ she said. As to the specifics of what that purpose may be, she said that should be argued in Sangamon County Circuit Court, where a judge invalidated the law last fall without hearing arguments about the merits. If the high court upholds the law, it returns to the county judge…
“Those challenging the law — teachers, state employees, retirees, and workers' unions — are adamant that the constitution's take on pensions is clear. The groups' attorney, Gino DiVito, told the court that when voters went to the polls in 1970 to approve the charter, the voter's guide said of the clause, ‘This section is new and self-explanatory.’
“‘This is a case about a constitutional provision, one that is explicit, clear and unambiguous and it is subject to no stated exception,’ DiVito said. ‘The state has not cited a single case where the reserve sovereign powers, the police powers, have been held to override a constitutional provision, and that's because there is no such case…’ (Associated Press).
For the complete article, click here.
A few other excerpts from Supreme Court Justice Robert R. Thomas:
“…First you blame the problem that the pension systems are now in on the recession of ’08 through 2010. How do you think the pension systems would have weathered through the recession if they were fully funded? …Isn’t it true that the State left the [pension] funds vulnerable in the first place?
“The reason these police powers should be invoked is because the dire situation the State is in, right? Any incongruity between that and the income tax reduction?
“What do we do with the clear evidence of the constitutional convention that shows that the framer’s intent in enacting the Pension Clause was to ensure, in trying economic times, what we have here—that the State would not attempt to diminish pension benefits?”
To view the oral arguments presented to the Illinois Supreme Court, Click Here.