The Springfield State Journal Register:
Lawyers challenging last year’s pension reform law said they will make another attempt to get an expedited ruling in the case in the wake of the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in the retiree health insurance case.
Lawyers said they believe the ruling in the health insurance case — called the Kanerva decision after one of the plaintiffs — effectively nullifies the state’s argument that Illinois’ severe financial problems allow pensions to be changed, despite the pension protection clause of the state Constitution.
At a hearing Tuesday, the lawyers said they will be filing new motions that will bring the issue before Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Belz.
“In the health care (case) and in this case, the change in pension is clearly a diminishment and impairment protected by the Constitution,” said Don Craven, who brought one of the five lawsuits challenging the pension reform law.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court said the state cannot charge retirees premiums for their state-subsidized health insurance. People who retire with 20 or more years of service are entitled to premium-free health insurance. The court said a state law passed to charge all retirees premiums for their health insurance represented a diminishment of retirement benefits prohibited by the Constitution.
The pension reform law also changes benefits, such as raising the retirement age and ending automatic, 3 percent compounded increases in retirement benefits. Attorneys for the state argue the state has sovereign powers that allow those changes because of the state’s financial problems.
“The Supreme Court could hardly have been clearer in destroying the police powers argument in the Kanerva case,” said attorney John Myers, who brought another of the pension reform lawsuits. “What the Supreme Court is saying is you have to fund this, now figure it out. That destroys the whole sovereign powers defense, which is, ‘We don’t have to figure it out, we can impair pensions.’ ”
Fred Klonsky 
Does not seem right for state to be allowed to raid pension fund. Glad to hear about the court decision.
Thank you, Joe. Good to hear some good words from you outside of reading you on Diane’s blog!
Thanks, Retired. Here’s a link to the weekly column I write that appears in 20-25 suburban & rural Mn newspapers. As you can see – I try to highlight outstanding things happening in public schools, whether district or charter:
http://hometownsource.com/tag/joe-nathan/?category=columns-opinion
Well, can the state just say we tried reform and just let the funds eventually dry up or are they obligated to find a way to keep them solvent?
No . The ILSC has said before and just said again the benefits must be paid . The funds are just something that can help pay them. There is no fund for the premium free retiree healthcare but its a covered benefit
The 10th Amendment reserves to the States all “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it. . . .” This is, I believe, the basis for Lisa Madigan’s reserved sovereign powers argument. She believes this permits the State to pass laws “impairing the obligation of contracts.”
In the main body of the Constitution, Article 1Section 10, Clause 1, the States are forbidden to pass laws “impairing the obligation of contracts.” I’m no attorney, but it would seem to me that the plain language of the US Constitution forbids the State to do what Madigan argues they have power to do.
It might be but that maybe a federal court argument . It is very possible she was too busy modeling to know what court she was in……but you are right it is a BS argument anyway.
If the US Constitution prohibits States from “impairing the obligation of contracts” then pension reform is not among the State’s sovereign reserved powers. That’s why I think Madigan’s defense must fail.