Judges consider tossing $60M Penn State fund lawsuit

Associated Press
June 19, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A panel of Pennsylvania judges will soon decide whether to side with the NCAA and throw out a lawsuit filed by a state senator and the state treasurer over the massive fine imposed on Penn State for its handling of the Jerry Sandusky scandal.

The legal issue before Commonwealth Court is the NCAA's "preliminary objections" to the lawsuit, which seeks to force Penn State to pay the $60 million into a state government account.

The lawsuit by state Sen. Jake Corman and Treasurer Rob McCord is part of an effort by many of Pennsylvania's top elected officials to ensure the money will be spent within the state rather than throughout the country, although in either case it will be spent on child abuse prevention and for its victims.

The consent agreement made last summer between the NCAA and Penn State directs that a task force will distribute the money, while a Corman-sponsored law enacted early this year would keep it in Pennsylvania and have it distributed by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency.

The first of five $12 million payments has been set aside by Penn State but not paid to the NCAA.

NCAA lawyer Everett Johnson argued Wednesday that McCord and Corman lack legal standing, that the new law that Corman sponsored is unconstitutional and that Penn State's relevance to the case makes the university such an indispensable party that the case can't proceed without it.

Johnson said the new law, formally known as the Institution of Higher Education Monetary Penalty Endowment Act, "represents an expansive intrusion into the historical autonomy of Penn State," and argued it was "a self-evidently protectionist law" that violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Corman's lawyer Matt Haverstick told the court the General Assembly "gave itself the obligation and the burden" to put some rules in place for the money, which he said could be traced to taxpayers. Penn State is considered a state-related university but is not a state agency, even though it gets hundreds of millions of dollars in state support every year.

"It's not the NCAA's money," Haverstick said. "The consent decree says nothing about whose money it is."

The judges pressed Haverstick on why the plaintiffs did not also sue Penn State.

"No one ever sues Penn State in any of this litigation that's floating around," said Judge Dan Pellegrini. "Isn't your complaint with Penn State?"

Haverstick said both Penn State and the NCAA control where the money will go.

Haverstick said the case raised questions that will require more time to establish all the facts, and that courts must grant considerable deference to the General Assembly when the issue is whether one of its laws is constitutional.

Pellegrini told the lawyers the court would not rule for at least 48 hours so the parties could consider whether to participate in mediation.

Sandusky the school's former assistant football coach, was convicted a year ago of 45 counts of child abuse involving 10 boys. The 69-year-old is serving a 30-to-60-year state prison sentence but maintains his innocence and is pursuing appeals.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.