Sure, let's look at one of the cases referenced by Jacob Schumer in the
Bloomberg article.
In
Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy, the City of Quincy, Illinois essentially refused to pay bonds ("coupons on interest notes") that it had issued. Even after receiving a judgement against them, Quincy continued to refuse to pay these bonds. It dragged out further, but the short of it is that Quincy tried to avoid paying the full amount owed to the bond holder by using a law as its defense. ("The principal question in this court was whether the act of February 14th, impaired the obligation of a contract, and was therefore void within the tenth section of the first article of the Constitution, which prohibits any State from passing such an act.")
The case references the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, § 10):
no State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts.
If Florida statutes require that RCID's obligations be assumed by the county (s. 189.072(4)):
Financial allocations of the assets and indebtedness of a dissolved independent special district shall be pursuant to s. 189.076.
And (s. 189.076(1)):
The government formed by merger of existing special districts shall assume all indebtedness of, and receive title to all property owned by, the preexisting special districts.
Then how is the obligation being impaired?
I realize there are counterarguments and am not trying to get into a debate. I'm only noting that one of the cases cited by Mr. Schumer raises questions.