It should not be overlooked that, in her 68-page opinion approving the legal settlement surrounding the state’s 2011 pension-reform law, Judge Sarah Taft-Carter states several times that the suit to overturn the law probably would have failed at trial.

The main statement of this is on page 59 of the opinion…

In particular the Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success at trial is low considering (1) their heavy burden of proof; (2) the strength of Defendants’ position that the Enactments were for legitimate public purpose; and (3) the fact that many other Courts have upheld pension reform, including changes to COLAs.

It’s then repeated on pages 61-62…

Here, as stated earlier, the Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success is low. First, the Plaintiffs bear a high standard of proof in that they must establish that the Enactments are unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt…

Additionally, while many Objectors stress the fact that they have a contractual right to their pension benefits, the existence of a contractual relationship is but one element of the Court’s constitutional analysis. Specifically, a statute may still “pass constitutional muster under contract clause analysis so long as it is reasonable and necessary to carry out a legitimate public purpose.”

…and again on page 66…

In addition to the Plaintiffs’ low likelihood of success, the underlying pension cases have been pending, in one case, since 2010 and in most of the other cases, since 2012, during which time all the Plaintiffs’ rights have essentially been in limbo, to say nothing of the ultimate financial situation of the State.

That the suit was unlikely to succeed was a significant factor in Judge Taft-Carter finding the settlement to be “fair, reasonable, and adequate”.