## Facts

- In 1989, the Montana Legislature enacted Chapter 115, Session Laws of 1989, creating a post-retirement adjustment to Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS) pension benefits to lessen inflation’s effect on pensions.
- Chapter 115 provided the adjustment to:
  - retirees or their beneficiaries who were age 55 or older, and
  - beneficiaries receiving disability or survivorship benefits, regardless of age.
- Arneson was the designated beneficiary of her mother, a TRS member who retired and died shortly thereafter.
- Arneson was 31 years old and received benefits derived from her mother’s retired status.
- Because Arneson was under 55 and her benefit was not categorized as a disability or survivorship benefit under the statute, TRS denied her the post-retirement adjustment.
- Arneson alleged the statute’s age-plus-status classification violated the equal protection clause of Article II, § 4 of the Montana Constitution.
- The district court applied rational-basis review and held the classification unconstitutional, reasoning that beneficiaries similarly affected by inflation were treated differently without a rational connection to the statute’s purpose.
- The State of Montana, by and through the Department of Administration, Teachers’ Retirement Division, appealed. Arneson cross-appealed, arguing for a heightened (middle-tier) equal protection test.

## Issues

1. Whether the court should apply middle-tier equal protection scrutiny (rather than rational-basis review) to Chapter 115’s age-plus-status classification affecting TRS benefit adjustments.
2. Whether Chapter 115 violates Montana’s equal protection guarantee by granting post-retirement adjustments to some under-55 beneficiaries (disability/survivorship) but denying them to under-55 beneficiaries of retirees, despite the statute’s inflation-relief purpose.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court.
- The Court declined to apply middle-tier scrutiny, concluding that this case did not involve a constitutionally directed benefit like the welfare benefit addressed in Butte Community Union v. State.
- Applying rational-basis review, the Court held the classification violated Article II, § 4 because it was underinclusive and lacked a rational relationship to the law’s purpose of offsetting inflation’s effect on pensions.
- The Court rejected the State’s arguments that the distinction could be justified as a money-saving measure or as a permissible piecemeal/experimental approach; cost savings cannot be pursued through a wholly arbitrary classification.

## Legal Principles

- Montana equal protection analysis generally applies rational-basis review to age-based and economic classifications unless a classification burdens a benefit with a specific constitutional mandate that warrants heightened review.
- A statutory classification must bear a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose; even deferential review does not allow classifications that are wholly arbitrary.
- When the stated purpose is to mitigate inflation’s erosion of benefits, groups that are similarly affected by inflation are similarly situated for equal protection purposes.
- An underinclusive benefit scheme—one that omits a similarly situated group without justification—can fail rational-basis review.
- Saving money is not, by itself, a sufficient justification if the line drawn between beneficiaries is arbitrary and unrelated to the statute’s stated purpose.
- The State may address problems in stages in some contexts, but that rationale does not validate a benefit scheme that simply selects winners and losers without a rational connection to the goal of the legislation.

## Conclusion

Arneson v. State held that Montana’s Chapter 115 TRS post-retirement adjustment violated the state constitution’s equal protection clause because it granted inflation-relief adjustments to disability and survivorship beneficiaries of any age while denying the same adjustment to under-55 beneficiaries of retirees like Arneson, even though both groups were similarly affected by inflation; the Montana Supreme Court applied rational-basis review (rejecting middle-tier scrutiny) and affirmed the district court’s ruling that the classification was arbitrary and unconstitutional.


Arneson v. State, 864 P.2d 1245 (1993)