INDIANAPOLIS (Legal Newsline) - An Indiana law that retroactively prohibited students from suing state universities over COVID pandemic measures like distance learning is constitutional and doesn’t prevent a Ball State student from suing the school on his own, the state’s highest court ruled.
Reversing an appeals court decision striking down the law as a violation of the separation of powers, the Indiana Supreme Court said the law passed in 2021 reflects the legislature’s policy decision to limit liability of state schools while they dealt with conflicting demands to continue teaching and enforce emergency pandemic measures.
Ball State switched to online learning in the 2020 spring semester. Keller Mellowitz sued the school in May of that year, seeking to establish a class action on behalf of all students who had been shortchanged on tuition by pandemic measures. A year later, the legislature passed Section 7 prohibiting class actions against state institutions for losses arising from Covid-19. The law was retroactive to March 1, 2020.
A trial court dismissed Mellowitz’s case, giving him the option of refiling the complaint as an individual action. Mellowitz appealed and the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, ruling Section 7 unconstitutionally interfered with Trial Rule 23 governing the class action procedure.
Indiana appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the appeals court in a Nov. 21 decision.
Before the Supreme Court, Mellowitz argued Section 7 was unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers by limiting class actions, takes his property without just compensation and violates his contract with Ball State.
The Indiana Supreme Court rejected all three arguments. While separation of powers prohibits the legislature from micromanaging the judiciary, the court said, lawmakers can pass statutes that alter procedure to achieve public policy goals. Indiana did that with anti-SLAPP laws, as did many other states, which provide a procedural mechanism for dismissing lawsuits intended to intimidate people engaging in public speech. The Indiana Supreme Court also assented to a change in the judicial rules of evidence to accommodate a law governing paternity cases.
Section 7 advances policy goals by “limiting any potential payouts to only students who sue the university,” not class members who never made a claim, the court said. That in turn removes the potential for “excessive settlement pressure.”
“Section 7 reflects an attempt to minimize postsecondary educational institutions’ litigation exposure for rapid, difficult decisions they had to make when confronting a historic disaster and complying with government directives,” the court said, noting that the same bill included legal protections for workers and others affected by the COVID pandemic.
The court also rejected Mellowitz’s argument he had a property right in the class action. He can still sue individually, the court said, as can any other students. Finally, the law didn’t impair his contract rights, since Section 7 only prevents him from trying to enforce the contract rights of other students.
Mellowitz was represented by Pavlock Law. Indiana was represented by Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath as well as Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita.