BOISE, Idaho — This article originally appeared in the Idaho Press.
The Idaho Supreme Court has decided that the developers who sought to purchase the vacant Idaho Transportation Department campus don’t have standing to challenge the state’s decision to revoke the sale.
Justice Colleen Zahn wrote in the unanimous decision that while the property’s highest bidders adequately demonstrated that the planned sale was revoked because of the budget bills passed by the Legislature, they had no binding contract, so there is no legally enforceable right to purchase the property. The decision was released ahead of the planned hearing to present oral arguments, which had been scheduled for Aug. 26.
“To be clear, our opinion today does not decide whether the legislature exceeded its constitutional authority in passing the appropriations bills,” Zahn wrote. “It also does not decide whether a party with standing would be entitled to the requested writs. Our decision is based solely on our conclusion that Petitioners do not have a legally enforceable right to purchase the ITD Campus and as a result, they do not have standing to file this action.”
Attorneys for Hawkins Companies, the Pacific Companies and FJ Management filed a lawsuit with the state Supreme Court on April 26 arguing that both the contentious ITD and the Department of Administration budget bills were unconstitutional because of intent language included that tanked a planned sale of the old ITD headquarters.
The court did not weigh in on the constitutionality of the bills, which the developers argued violated the state’s constitutional single-subject rule.
Hawkins Companies CEO Brian Huffaker wrote in an emailed statement that the group is "shocked" by the decision to dismiss the case.
"We continue to believe any review of the unchecked actions of the Idaho Legislature would have found them to be illegal," Huffaker said. "Despite months of opportunities for all three branches of state government to participate in fair business dealings, none have chosen to do so. Those choices, along with the actions of the Idaho Legislature, send a clear message: Don't do business with Idaho. All of us - citizens and businesses alike - should be concerned."
"We now hope the taxpayers hold legislators and state leaders accountable for lost revenue and opportunity stemming from their unprecedented interference with the free market."
The appropriations for ITD and the administration department were both subjects of heated debate in the final days of the 2024 legislative session, because they included intent language that revoked the planned sale. The agency had previously declared the vacant headquarters as surplus and gone through the process of selling it off. Lawmakers disagreed on whether a budget bill was the appropriate avenue to tank the sale.
The group of developers shortly after the session sued the agencies and the Board of Examiners. The House of Representatives asked to intervene in the case. Each respondent to the lawsuit responded with different approaches.
Attorneys for the state agencies responded to the developers’ lawsuit by asking for the court’s guidance on the bill’s constitutionality and how the bills affect the state’s laws on how to handle surplus property. The governor hired outside attorneys to defend the agencies, removing Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s office from representing them.
Labrador did represent the Board of Examiners and argued that the developers lacked standing to bring the lawsuit and that the state can’t legally be forced to go through the sale when there’s no signed contract; the court opinion largely agreed with this argument.
Attorneys for House Speaker Mike Moyle in response took aim at the state agencies, arguing they did not properly follow the surplus statute and defended the constitutionality of the bills, the Idaho Press previously reported.
The court wrote that, while the developers lacked standing to question the laws, ITD and the Department of Administration might not. This point was made in response to the developers’ claim that only they could challenge the bills.
“They (the agencies) have alleged that the bills interfere with the authority granted to them by law,” Zahn wrote. “The bills in question also concern their budgets and, in ITD’s case, the location of its headquarters, offices, and testing facilities. The bills also affect real property owned by ITD. While both agencies would likely have standing to bring a lawsuit against the legislature for the alleged constitutional violations in their respective appropriations bills, they have not done so.”
This article originally appeared in the Idaho Press, read more on IdahoPress.com.