Illinois Supreme Court hears arguments in pension case
Does the Illinois Constitution’s pension clause spell disaster for the state?
The Illinois Supreme Court began hearing arguments on March 11 in a case that will determine the future of pension reform – and affect every taxpayer – in Illinois.
The question before the court: Does the Illinois Constitution’s pension clause, which says government employees’ pension benefits can’t be “diminished or impaired,” mean the state can’t make any changes to its pension system, even if it means fiscal and economic disaster?
Specifically, the court is considering the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1, the (weak) pension-reform bill that former Gov. Pat Quinn signed into law in 2013, which reduces annual increases in retiree benefits, commonly referred to as cost-of-living adjustments; increases the retirement age for some government employees, and caps the amount of an employee’s salary that can be considered when calculating his or her pension payments.
Defending the bill, Solicitor General Carolyn Shapiro rightly argued that the pension clause is not an “absolute” guarantee; it only provides the same protection for pension benefits that the contract clauses of the U.S. Constitution and Illinois Constitution provide to all other contractual obligations. The U.S. Supreme Court and the Illinois Supreme Court have long held that the government can modify contractual obligations – even the government’s own obligations – where it’s necessary to serve the public’s welfare.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys, on the other hand, argued that the pension clause doesn’t include any exceptions, so there are no exceptions.
The justices didn’t provide many clues as to whom they’ll side with.
Four of them didn’t speak at all, and two of those who did speak seemed skeptical of the state’s arguments in defense of the law.
Justice Robert Thomas, a Republican from DuPage County, asked Shapiro several skeptical questions and suggested that adopting the state’s position would give the General Assembly a “license to violate constitutional guarantees.” Shapiro’s correct response: The state is only asking the court to do what it has done for many years in applying the contract clause.
Justice Lloyd Karmeier, a Republican from southern Illinois, seemed doubtful of Shapiro’s suggestion that, under the U.S. Constitution, the state cannot give up its sovereign power to act to protect the public. He pointed out, rightly, that sovereignty ultimately lies with the people, who can restrain government as they see fit through the state constitution.
The justices did not ask any questions challenging the plaintiffs’ arguments. That might be read as a bad sign, but of course it’s impossible to know from questioning how judges will ultimately rule. To find that out – and to find out what the future of Illinois pension reform may look like – we will have to wait for their written decision.