Arizona Public Service Co. v. Snead

Last updated

Arizona Public Service Co. v. Snead
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued February 26, 1979
Decided April 18, 1979
Full case name Arizona Public Service Co., et al. v. Snead, Director of Revenue Division, Taxation and Revenue Department of New Mexico, et al.
Docket no. 77-1810
Citations441 U.S. 141 ( more )
99 S. Ct. 1629; 60 L. Ed. 2d 106; 1979 U.S. LEXIS 32
Case history
PriorArizona Public Service Co. v. O'Chesky, 91 N.M. 485, 576 P.2d 291 (1978)
Holding
New Mexico's energy tax on the generation of electricity is invalid under the Supremacy Clause.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun  · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist  · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
MajorityStewart, joined by Burger, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens
ConcurrenceRehnquist, joined by White
Laws applied
15 U.S.C.   § 391

Arizona Public Service Co. v. Snead, 441 U.S. 141 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a New Mexico tax on the generation of electricity was invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Snead was the director of the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department.

Contents

Background

Most of the electricity generated at the Four Corners Generating Station located in northwest New Mexico is transmitted for export and sold in neighboring states. [1] In 1975 New Mexico enacted the Electrical Energy Tax Act, which imposed a tax on the amount of electricity generated by power plants. The tax amounted to about 2 percent of the retail value of electricity. The Act further allowed electric companies in New Mexico to credit the amount of this tax against their existing tax liability from an existing 4 percent gross receipts tax on retail sales of electricity, essentially eliminating the effect of the tax upon New Mexico's in-state users of electricity. [1] Electricity generated from in-state power plants but exported for sale to out-of-state customers did not have any gross receipts tax liability to credit the energy tax against.

The five out-of-state electric companies with an ownership interest in the Four Corners Generating Station, Arizona Public Service Company, Southern California Edison, Public Service Company of New Mexico, Salt River Project, Tucson Electric Power, and El Paso Electric, filed an action in the district court of Santa Fe County seeking a declaratory judgment that the New Mexico energy tax was unconstitutional and void. In addition to the ownership interest in the Four Corners Generating Station, Tucson Electric Power also had a part ownership interest in the San Juan Generating Station and El Paso Electric owned and operated the Rio Grande Generating Station, both of which were also located in New Mexico.

While the state district court case was pending, Arizona filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the New Mexico energy tax. The motion requested authorization to file an action against New Mexico under the Court's original jurisdiction. In Arizona v. New Mexico , [2] the Court denied the motion, noting that the pending state court case was the appropriate forum for litigation of the same issues involving the New Mexico energy tax.

After opposing motions for summary judgment were filed in the district court, the court ruled for New Mexico. The electric companies appealed the case to the New Mexico Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending before the court, the United States Congress enacted the Tax Reform Act of 1976 and included a provision regarding the New Mexico energy tax. The provision, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 391, stated:

No State, or political subdivision thereof, may impose or assess a tax on or with respect to the generation or transmission of electricity which discriminates against out-of-State manufacturers, producers, wholesalers, retailers, or consumers of that electricity. For purposes of this section a tax is discriminatory if it results, either directly or indirectly, in a greater tax burden on electricity which is generated and transmitted in interstate commerce than on electricity which is generated and transmitted in intrastate commerce. [3]

The New Mexico Supreme Court issued a ruling in 1978 and found that the state energy tax was valid. The court concluded, if the total tax burden on the electric companies was considered, that since the tax on electricity generated was applicable to both electricity sold in-state and out-of-state, and that the credit against the state gross receipts tax was available to both in-state and out-of-state electric companies, it did not result in a discriminatory tax burden. [4] The electric companies then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that the tax violated the Commerce and Export-Import Clauses of the Constitution and was invalid under 15 U.S.C. § 391.

Opinion of the Court

New Mexico attempted to tax the electricity generated and exported out-of-state from the Four Corners Generating Station, shown in a 1972 photograph. FOUR CORNERS POWER PLANT - NARA - 544328.jpg
New Mexico attempted to tax the electricity generated and exported out-of-state from the Four Corners Generating Station, shown in a 1972 photograph.

The Supreme Court reversed the New Mexico Supreme Court, holding that the New Mexico energy tax was invalid under the Supremacy Clause since it violated 15 U.S.C. § 391. The Court noted that the statute was directed specifically at a state tax on generation or transmission of electricity and not on the overall tax burden of electric companies. As the New Mexico Electrical Energy Tax on generation ensured locally consumed electricity had no tax burden, it violated that statute. The Court stated that Congress, in enacting the ban on these types of state taxes and against the New Mexico tax in particular, had broad authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate interstate commerce, as the Court had held in cases such as Katzenbach v. McClung , [5] Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States , [6] and Wickard v. Filburn . [7]

In a concurring opinion, Justice Rehnquist with whom Justice White joins, noted that when 15 U.S.C. § 391 had been discussed by the Senate, it had been stated that the statute had supposedly been drafted to do no more than what the Commerce Clause would accomplish on its own terms. However, the statute did more than that, and forbids the New Mexico energy tax.

Related Research Articles

The Dormant Commerce Clause, or Negative Commerce Clause, in American constitutional law, is a legal doctrine that courts in the United States have inferred from the Commerce Clause in Article I of the US Constitution. The primary focus of the doctrine is barring state protectionism. The Dormant Commerce Clause is used to prohibit state legislation that discriminates against, or unduly burdens, interstate or international commerce. Courts first determine whether a state regulation discriminates on its face against interstate commerce or whether it has the purpose or effect of discriminating against interstate commerce. If the statute is discriminatory, the state has the burden to justify both the local benefits flowing from the statute and to show the state has no other means of advancing the legitimate local purpose.

The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution. The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: the Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Indian Commerce Clause.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. It remains as one of the most important and far-reaching cases concerning the New Deal, and it set a precedent for an expansive reading of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause for decades to come. The goal of the legal challenge was to end the entire federal crop support program by declaring it unconstitutional.

Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 450 U.S. 662 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the application of the Dormant Commerce Clause to an Iowa state statute restricting the length of tractor-trailers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938</span> United States federal law

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 was legislation in the United States that was enacted as an alternative and replacement for the farm subsidy policies, in previous New Deal farm legislation, that had been found unconstitutional. The act revived the provisions in the previous Agriculture Adjustment Act, with the exception that the financing of the law's programs would be provided by the Federal Government and not a processor's tax, and was also enforced as a response to the success of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936.

Southern Pacific Company v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761 (1945), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Arizona Train Limit Law of 1912, which prohibited passenger trains with more than fourteen cars and prohibited freight trains with more than seventy cars, placed an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. The Court held that the law imposed a burden far greater than necessary to achieve Arizona's legitimate interest in lowering the rate of train accidents. This case is part of the Court's so-called negative commerce clause jurisprudence.

Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which unanimously held that Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in forbidding racial discrimination in restaurants as this was a burden to interstate commerce.

Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Commerce Clause and sales tax.

Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609 (1981), is a 6-to-3 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that a severance tax in Montana does not violate the Commerce Clause or the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 359 U.S. 520 (1959), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Illinois law requiring trucks to have unique mudguards was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause.

Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States holding that an Indian tribe has the authority to impose taxes on non-Indians that are conducting business on the reservation as an inherent power under their tribal sovereignty.

Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that power of states to pass laws interfering with interstate commerce is limited when the law poses an undue burden on businesses.

Arizona v. New Mexico, 425 U.S. 794 (1976), is an opinion from the United States Supreme Court which denied a motion from the State of Arizona seeking authorization to file suit against the State of New Mexico by invoking the original jurisdiction of the court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Four Corners Generating Station</span> American coal-fired power plant

The Four Corners Generating Station is a 1,540 megawatt coal-fired power plant located near Fruitland, New Mexico, on property located on the Navajo Nation that is leased from the Navajo Nation government.

The constitutional law of the United States is the body of law governing the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution. The subject concerns the scope of power of the United States federal government compared to the individual states and the fundamental rights of individuals. The ultimate authority upon the interpretation of the Constitution and the constitutionality of statutes, state and federal, lies with the Supreme Court of the United States.

United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995), was a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court that struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (GFSZA) due to its being outside of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. It was the first case since 1937 in which the Court held that Congress had exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), including a requirement for most Americans to pay a penalty for forgoing health insurance by 2014. The Acts represented a major set of changes to the American health care system that had been the subject of highly contentious debate, largely divided on political party lines.

Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne, 575 U.S. 542 (2015), is a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that applied the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine to Maryland's personal income tax scheme and found that the failure to provide a full credit for income taxes paid to other states was unconstitutional.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Ward, 470 U.S. 869 (1985), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state cannot tax out-of-state insurance companies at a greater rate than domestic insurance companies under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution.

The Aggregate effects doctrine, Cumulative effects doctrine, or substantial effects is a legal doctrine in United States federal law. The AED permits extension of the regulation of interstate commerce into any action which affects interstate commerce only when aggregated with other actions. It is most often associated with Wickard v. Filburn 1942. In Wickard a wheat farmer growing wheat solely for animal feed within the confines of his own farm was found to be regulatable because private growth for private consumption was the primary reason for decrease of demand.

References

  1. 1 2 Arizona Public Service Co. v. Snead, 441 U.S. 141 (1979). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. Arizona v. New Mexico , 425 U.S. 794 (1976).
  3. 15 U.S.C.   § 391.
  4. Arizona Public Service Co. v. O'Chesky, 91 N.M. 485, 576 P.2d 291 (1978).
  5. Katzenbach v. McClung , 379 U.S. 294 (1964).
  6. Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States , 379 U.S. 241 (1964).
  7. Wickard v. Filburn , 317 U.S. 111 (1942).