* SJ-R…

Attorneys for some retired state workers argued before the Illinois Supreme Court Wednesday that the retirees should not be required to pay premiums for their state-subsidized health insurance.

However, attorneys for the state continued to maintain that health insurance benefits are separate from pension benefits and thus not protected by the state Constitution. […]

“Do an Internet search for jobs with benefits,” [Edward Kionka, one of two attorneys representing retired state workers] told the court. “Everyone know that means such things as health insurance. The term benefits is much broader than pensions.” […]

Assistant Attorney General Richard Huszagh said nothing in that law established retiree health insurance as a contractual right.

“There is nothing in the group insurance act that satisfies the strict standards to establish a contractual status for those provisions,” he argued. “What the plaintiffs are asking the court to do is give the pension clause a new and expansive interpretation.”

* Here’s some analysis posted yesterday on the Appellate Strategist blog…

This morning, a seemingly skeptical Illinois Supreme Court appeared ready to side with the State in a dispute over 2012 amendments to the State Employee Group Insurance Act. Several Justices peppered the two attorneys splitting argument time for the plaintiffs with sixteen questions during their opening, many of which echoed various points made in the Circuit Court’s opinion tossing the case out of court. In comparison, counsel for the State was treated gently, receiving only five questions in all, four of them from Justice Thomas.

It’s a very detailed and involved report, so go read the whole thing.

* Our commenter RNUG, who has proved to be a heck of a pension issues analyst, disagreed…

Just finished watching to the Kanerva v Weems video and reading the analysis by Kirk Jenkins. I won’t belabor the items point by point but just say I don’t necessarily agree with Jenkins’ analysis but we’ll eventually see how accurate his reading is.

The one thing that really struck me was the arguments used by the State re what is protected by the Pension Clause. The state’s attorney made every one of the arguments a lot of us have been making that the pensions themselves can’t be diminished in any way, shape or form. Whoever ends up suing over SB0001, SB2424 or whatever gets passed can just use all the state’s own arguments to make the point the pensions can’t be diminished.

RNUG (which stands for Retired Non-Union Guy) updated and expanded his thoughts this morning…

1) The [Illinois Supreme Court], which probably doesn’t want to be in the middle of the pension clause arguments, could use this case to send a clear message that the pensions can’t be altered after the fact.

2) The questioning seemed to indicate that the judges had some problems with the points raised by both sides. If I had to guess on the ruling, it might be a split one, returning the case to the circuit court, giving the state the right to minimally alter the health insurance but finding that (at minimum) access to the State’s group health plan at a reasonable cost is, in fact. a contractually and constitutionally protected right … while leaving the details of exactly what and how to be determined by the circuit court.

If the court ruled as outlined in #2, that takes any ‘consideration’ for health insurance access off the table, negating Cullerton’s SB2424 contractual alteration argument. Some expanded comments (as done in previous pension cases) about what is protected could also dispel the notion of any ‘police powers’ argument.

* Watch the hearing for yourself…

Click to view