Pennsylvania v. New Jersey Maine v. New Hampshire
Decision Date | 17 June 1976 |
Docket Number | O,Nos. 68 and 69,s. 68 and 69 |
Citation | 49 L.Ed.2d 124,96 S.Ct. 2333,426 U.S. 660 |
Parties | Commonwealth of PENNSYLVANIA, Plaintiff, v. State of NEW JERSEY. State of MAINE et al., Plaintiffs, v. State of NEW HAMPSHIRE. rig |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 660-661 intentionally omitted]
The motions for leave to file bills of complaint in these cases are denied.
The complaints, which seek to invoke our original jurisdiction, filed by Pennsylvania against New Jersey, and by Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont against New Hampshire, rely on our decision last Term in Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U.S. 656, 95 S.Ct. 1191, 43 L.Ed.2d 530 (1975), in which we held the New Hampshire Commuters Income Tax unconstitutional.
In Austin, supra, the Court held that the New Hampshire tax violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution. That law imposed a 4% Tax on the New Hampshire-derived income of nonresidents. Although the law also imposed a tax on the income earned by New Hampshire residents outside the State, it then exempted such income from the tax if the income were either taxed or not taxed by the State from which it was derived. Since New Hampshire also did not tax the domestic income of its residents, the net effect of the Commuters Income Tax was to tax only the incomes of nonresidents working in New Hampshire.
The resident State of the plaintiff in Austin was Maine, and it provided a credit for income taxes paid to other States. Thus, New Hampshire's beggar-thy-neighbor tax rendered the total state tax liability of nonresidents unchanged, but diverted to New Hampshire tax revenues from the treasury of Maine. We held New Hampshire's taxing scheme unconstitutional since the tax "(fell) exclusively on the income of nonresidents . . . and (was) not offset even approximately by other taxes imposed upon residents alone." Id., at 665, 95 S.Ct., at 1197 (footnote deleted).
In No. 68, Original, Pennsylvania contends that the New Jersey Transportation Benefits Tax Act, N.J.Stat.Ann. § 54:8A-58 Et seq. (Supp.1976-1977), is infirm under the Privileges and Immunities Clause as interpreted in Austin, supra, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. According to the complaint filed by Pennsylvania, the New Jersey tax fatally resembles the tax we held unconstitutional in Austin. Like New Hampshire, New Jersey does not tax the domestic income of its residents. Under the Transpor- tion Benefits Tax Act, however, New Jersey does tax the New Jersey-derived income of nonresidents. And while that Act imposes an equivalent tax on the income of New Jersey residents earned outside the State, it exempts such income to the extent it is taxed by the State in which it is earned. Finally, like Maine in the Austin case, Pennsylvania permits a tax credit to any of its residents for income taxes paid to other States, including, of course, New Jersey. Pennsylvania, suing on behalf of itself and as Parens patriae On behalf of its citizens, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and, apparently, an accounting for the taxes that New Jersey's allegedly unconstitutional tax has diverted from the Pennsylvania treasury.
The plaintiffs in No. 69, Original, Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont, explicitly premise their suit on the decision in Austin, supra. They seek on behalf of themselves an accounting for the taxes, alleged to amount to over $13.5 million, that New Hampshire's unconstitutional Commuters Income Tax diverted from their respective treasuries.
It has long been the rule that in order to engage this Court's original jurisdiction, a plaintiff State must first demonstrate that the injury for which it seeks redress was directly caused by the actions of another State. As Mr. Chief Justice Hughes noted on behalf of the Court in Massachusetts v. Missouri, 308 U.S. 1, 15, 60 S.Ct. 39, 42, 84 L.Ed. 3 (1939): "To constitute such a (justiciable) controversy, it must appear that the complaining State has suffered a wrong through the action of the other State, furnishing ground for judicial redress . . .."
In Massachusetts v. Missouri, supra, Massachusetts sought a declaration that only it could impose an inheritance tax on the estate of a Massachusetts domiciliary who had died with most of his assets located in several revocable Missouri trusts. The assets located in Massachusetts were insufficient to pay that State's inheritance taxes. Missouri also claimed the exclusive right timpose its tax on the Missouri trusts. In language that is particularly appropriate for our disposition of these cases, the Court denied leave to file the complaint:
In neither of the suits at bar has the defendant State inflicted any injury upon the plaintiff States through the imposition of the taxes held, in No. 69, and alleged, in No. 68, to be unconstitutional. The injuries to the plaintiffs' fiscs were self-inflicted, resulting from decisions by their respective state legislatures. Nothing required Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont to extend a tax credit to their residents for income taxes paid to New Hampshire, and nothing prevents Pennsylvania from withdrawing that credit for taxes paid to New Jersey. No State can be heard to complain about damage inflicted by its own hand.
Pennsylvania, in attempting to establish its entitlement to taxes collected by New Jersey from its residents, has alleged that the New Jersey Transportation Benefits Tax Act violates both the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont claim that New Hampshire's withholding of taxes collected under its unconstitutional commuters tax violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The short answer to these contentions is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Connecticut v. Spellings
...the State under the Act. See Mem. in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss [doc. # 18] at 23-24, 28 (citing Pennsylvania v. New Jersey, 426 U.S. 660, 664, 96 S.Ct. 2333, 49 L.Ed.2d 124 (1976) (holding that plaintiff-states lacked standing to challenge income taxes imposed on their residents by ot......
-
United States v. State
...status within the federal system"). A sovereign interest also may support a parens patriae suit. Pennsylvania v. New Jersey , 426 U.S. 660, 666, 96 S.Ct. 2333, 49 L.Ed.2d 124 (1976) (denying Pennsylvania leave to file a suit in parens patriae because "[n]o sovereign or quasi-sovereign inter......
-
State of Conn. v. Levi Strauss & Co.
...whenever it appeared that their real claim was being brought only on behalf of particular citizens. Pennsylvania v. New Jersey, 426 U.S. 660, 665-66, 96 S.Ct. 2333, 49 L.Ed.2d 124 (1976); Oklahoma v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad, 220 U.S. 277, 31 S.Ct. 434, 55 L.Ed. 465 (1911); see ......
-
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Cruz
...likely to be subjected to that policy in any event. Id. , at 416, 133 S.Ct. 1138. Likewise, in Pennsylvania v. New Jersey , 426 U.S. 660, 96 S.Ct. 2333, 49 L.Ed.2d 124 (1976) (per curiam ), we held that the unilateral decisions by a group of States to reimburse their residents for taxes lev......
-
What's Next For The Class Action Plaintiffs' Bar? Getting Deputized By State Attorneys General
...rather than vindicating a "sovereign or quasi-sovereign interest" in the health or safety of their citizens. Pennsylvania v. New Jersey, 426 U.S. 660, 666 (1976). Statutory remedial schemes may preempt parens patriae lawsuits. For example, because the federal antitrust laws limit standing t......
-
Separation-of-Powers Avoidance.
...128 HARV. L. REV. 124, 140 (2014). (189.) Clinton, 524 U.S. at 421. (190.) Id. at 426. (191.) See, e.g., Pennsylvania v. New Jersey, 426 U.S. 660 (1976) (per curiam); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. (192.) Clinton, 524 U.S. at 432. (193.) Id. (194.) See Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398,......