Meyer Turken; Kenneth D. Cheuvront; James Iannuzo; Justin Shafer; Zul Gillani; and Kathy Rowe…

Summary

The court clarified that a governmental contract violates the Gift Clause only when it lacks a public purpose or when the consideration received is grossly disproportionate to the public expenditure. Indirect benefits such as anticipated tax revenues may support a public purpose but are not consideration unless contractually promised. Because the clarification applied prospectively, the court vacated the court of appeals' decision and affirmed dismissal of the Gift Clause claim, while remanding the remaining constitutional claims.