Goff, J.
In 2017, the legislature passed a statute stopping Bloomington’s proposed annexation of several areas of land and prohibiting the city from trying to annex the areas for five years. Bloomington, which had been in the process of educating and engaging the public about the proposed annexation but had not yet sought formal adoption of its plan, challenged the constitutionality of the statute in a declaratory judgment action against Governor Holcomb. The trial court ultimately found the statute unconstitutional. On appeal, the parties present us with two issues: (1) whether Bloomington can seek declaratory relief in this case from the Governor, and (2) whether the statute is unconstitutional.
First, we conclude that Bloomington can challenge the statute in this declaratory judgment action against the Governor. Because Bloomington has suffered an injury, and due to the unique way in which the statute was drafted, Bloomington’s suit satisfies the requirements of a declaratory judgment action. Prudential concerns further compel us to reach the merits of this case.
Second, we conclude that the statute is unconstitutional special legislation in violation of Article 4, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution because the legislature enacted a special law—one that targeted only Bloomington—when it could have enacted a law that applied generally throughout Indiana. We thus affirm the trial court on these issues.
….
In addressing whether the Governor is the proper defendant in this declaratory judgment action, we proceed in three parts. In Part I.A., we describe the Governor’s specific argument challenging the justiciability of this suit and lay out the standard that controls this case. In Part I.B., we consider whether this case is nonjusticiable based on the Governor’s argument that he does not enforce Section 11.8. In Part I.C., we determine whether this case is nonjusticiable due to prudential concerns. Ultimately, based on all this analysis, we conclude that this case is justiciable, and Bloomington can bring this declaratory judgment action.
A. As a threshold matter, we need only consider the Governor’s specific justiciability challenge to Bloomington’s declaratory judgment action, not broad principles of standing.
….
Here, Bloomington has a substantial present interest in the declaratory relief it seeks because a declaration that Section 11.8 is unconstitutional would remove the statute as a barrier to its proposed annexation. But, if the Governor has no connection to Section 11.8, Bloomington’s declaratory judgment action against him would lack even the ripening seeds of a controversy and Bloomington could not obtain relief from him. Accordingly, our task in addressing the Governor’s argument that Bloomington cannot bring this suit against him boils down to one limited question: What connection does the Governor have to Section 11.8?
This case does not turn on broad principles of standing. Justiciability, in the context of declaratory judgment actions, merely requires that the “ripening seeds” of a controversy exist and that the plaintiff has “a substantial present interest in the relief sought.” Id. This relaxed standard aligns with the purpose of declaratory judgment actions: “to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status and other legal relations.” I.C. § 34-14-1-12. Here, Bloomington brought its declaratory judgment action seeking relief from uncertainty and insecurity surrounding Section 11.8, and the Governor has raised a narrow challenge to the justiciability of the dispute based on his alleged lack of connection with the statute. None of this turns on broad principles of standing.
Keeping in mind the Governor’s narrow justiciability argument, we consider the unique impact of annexation statutes like Section 11.8; analyze what the structure and application of Section 11.8 mean for its enforcement; and review the potential sources of the Governor’s enforcement authority to see what, if any, connection the Governor has to the statute.
B. The legislature drafted Section 11.8 in a unique way that vests enforcement authority in the Governor, and Bloomington can bring this declaratory judgment action against him because of it.
1. Annexation is a unique area of law primarily dealing with public rather than private relations.
….
2. Unlike other annexation statutes, the legislature did not tie Section 11.8’s enforcement to remonstrances.
….
3. The Governor enforces Section 11.8 thanks to the combination of his broad constitutional duties and the statute’s one-of-a-kind nature, so Bloomington can bring this suit.
….
Based on this analysis, the Governor is a proper defendant here. The unique features of Section 11.8 show that the Governor enforces the statute pursuant to his general executive power and his duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. Because the Governor enforces section 11.8 under these rare circumstances, a judgment in Bloomington’s favor here will provide redress to the city by removing the statute as a barrier to its proposed annexation.6 Therefore, Bloomington’s suit against the Governor easily presents the ripening seeds of a controversy that our Declaratory Judgments Act requires. We emphasize, however, that the Governor’s argument will win in most cases—his general constitutional powers and duties will not establish enough of a connection to a statute to allow a suit like this one under most circumstances. But, given the one-ofa-kind statute involved, the Governor’s constitutional authority and duty, the significant injury suffered by Bloomington, and the ability to afford it redress through declaratory judgment, we must reach this unusual result.
C. Prudential concerns involved in the Governor’s argument do not render this case nonjusticiable but, instead, compel us to reach the merits.
….
In the end, while this Court exercises cautious restraint in checking the other branches under separation-of-powers principles, “we do not permit excessive formalism to prevent necessary judicial involvement. Where an actual controversy exists we will not shirk our duty to resolve it.” Boehm, 675 N.E.2d at 322 (citation omitted). Bloomington’s declaratory judgment action presents an actual controversy, and prudential concerns compel us to resolve it.
II. Section 11.8 is unconstitutional special legislation.
Article 4, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution places limits on special legislation, “which is a law that ‘pertains to and affects a particular case, person, place, or thing, as opposed to the general public.’” Herman & Kittle Props., Inc., 119 N.E.3d at 78 (citation omitted). In relevant part, it provides that “in all . . . cases where a general law can be made applicable, all laws shall be general, and of uniform operation throughout the State.” Ind. Const. art. 4, § 23. Bloomington contends that Section 11.8 violates Article 4, Section 23 because the legislature enacted Section 11.8 as a special law when it could have enacted a general law. The Governor admits that Section 11.8 is special legislation, but he defends Section 11.8’s constitutionality, arguing that a general law could not be made applicable here given certain aspects of Bloomington’s proposed annexation. In resolving this disagreement, we first review the framework for determining a law’s constitutionality under Article 4, Section 23, and then we apply that framework to the facts here.
A. We recently clarified the framework for determining whether a statute violates Article 4, Section 23.
….
B. Bloomington’s proposed annexation presents no unique circumstances justifying Section 11.8’s special treatment.
….
Conclusion
This declaratory judgment action involves the following two issues: whether Bloomington properly sought declaratory relief from the Governor, and whether Section 11.8 is unconstitutional. We find that the Governor, in light of his constitutional authority and duty, does enforce Section 11.8 and Bloomington can bring its declaratory judgment action against him here because of the unique way in which the legislature drafted the statute, and because prudential concerns compel us to reach the merits. We also find that the legislature drafted Section 11.8 as a special law when a general law could have been made, so Section 11.8 violates Article 4, Section 23’s limitation on special laws. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order granting summary judgment and declaratory relief to Bloomington and ruling that Section 11.8 constitutes impermissible special legislation in violation of Article 4, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution.
Rush, C.J., concurs.
David, J., concurs in result.
Slaughter, J., dissents with separate opinion in which Massa, J., joins.
Slaughter, J., dissenting.
Rejecting Governor Holcomb’s argument that he is the wrong defendant in this declaratory-judgment suit, the Court holds that broad principles of standing do not apply here but prudential considerations do. I respectfully disagree on both points and would not give our state constitution’s separation-of-powers mandate such short shrift under either doctrine. Our constitution confines courts to deciding cases over which they have jurisdiction. A justiciable case—one suitable for judicial resolution—has essential constitutional requirements like standing and nonessential considerations like prudence. Today’s decision conflates the essential with the nonessential and thus erodes separation of powers. When a plaintiff lacks standing, any court action exceeds our constitution’s grant of judicial power. Prudence, in contrast, presumes standing and permits a court to skirt a case over which it has jurisdiction. It does not authorize a court to proceed where jurisdiction is lacking. Simply put, Bloomington lacks standing here, which means the courts lack jurisdiction, and prudential considerations cannot fix this fatal flaw.
Although the Court invokes prudential concerns as an independent basis for reaching the merits, what animates the Court’s analysis is its finding that the City has standing. Standing requires a plaintiff to prove injury, causation, and redressability in all cases, including actions for declaratory relief. The Court’s contrary decision contravenes both our case law on declaratory judgments and our constitution’s structural limits on judicial power. And the Court’s rationale that a declaratory judgment against the governor on this record will redress the City’s injury depends on a view of executive power that is deeply flawed. Under the Court’s conception, the governor’s duty to “take care” that the laws are faithfully executed is subject to judicial and legislative meddling. This interpretive approach to Article 5, Section 16 purports to empower the governor to enforce statutes over which he claims no authority when the courts say so—thus requiring that he defend unwelcome lawsuits—yet leaves him vulnerable to having his inherent powers rescinded or reassigned when the legislature says so. I cannot subscribe to a view of executive power in which the governor’s “take care” authority serves as neither his shield nor his sword.
….
Because our decision cannot be reconciled with the structural limits on judicial power compelled by Article 3, Section 1, and the governor’s grant of power under Article 5, Section 16, I respectfully dissent.
Massa, J., joins.