Arizona v. New Mexico

Last updated
Arizona v. New Mexico
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Decided May 24, 1976
Full case nameArizona v. New Mexico
Citations425 U.S. 794 ( more )
96 S. Ct. 1845; 48 L. Ed. 2d 376; 1976 U.S. LEXIS 117
Case history
SubsequentLaw upheld in state court sub nom.Arizona Public Service Co. v. O'Chesky, 91 N.M. 485, 576 P.2d 291 (1978);
reversed sub nom Arizona Public Service Co. v. Snead , 441 U.S. 141 (1979)
Holding
Motion denied as an action involving the same constitutional issues had been filed in state court which provided an appropriate forum to litigate the issues.
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
Per curiam
ConcurrenceStevens
Laws applied
U.S. Const., Article 3, Section 2

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. [1]

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. [2] In 1975 New Mexico enacted the Electrical Energy Tax Act, which imposed a tax on electricity generated by power plants within the state. 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. [2] 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.

Arizona filed a motion seeking to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article III Section 2 of the United States Constitution for authorization to file a complaint against New Mexico. Section 2 of Article III states that in cases in which a state is a party, the Supreme Court will have original jurisdiction, meaning that the trial will take place before the court. The complaint alleged that the New Mexico energy tax was invalid as it placed an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause, denied Arizona due process and equal protection under the law under the Fourteenth Amendment, and abridged the privileges and immunities guarantied by Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution. [1]

New Mexico in its reply to the motion argued that the Court should deny the motion as the three Arizona electric companies had filed an action in the district court of Santa Fe County seeking a declaratory judgment that the energy tax was invalid, and that the companies had refused to pay the tax. [1]

Decision

A New Mexico tax on electricity exported out-of-state from the Four Corners Generating Station, shown in a 1972 photograph, caused the dispute with Arizona. FOUR CORNERS POWER PLANT - NARA - 544328.jpg
A New Mexico tax on electricity exported out-of-state from the Four Corners Generating Station, shown in a 1972 photograph, caused the dispute with Arizona.

The Supreme Court in a per curiam opinion denied the motion of Arizona. The opinion noted, based upon its decisions in Massachusetts v. Missouri, 308 U.S. 1 (1939), [3] and Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91 (1972), [4] that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was to be used only in appropriate cases based upon the seriousness of the case and whether another forum was available with jurisdiction over the parties and where the issues could be litigated. [1] By using its discretion and limiting the instances where original jurisdiction was granted, the Court could devote its time and resources to its appellate cases. In this case, the Court concluded that the pending state court case was the appropriate forum for litigation of the same issues involving the New Mexico energy tax.

Justice Stevens filed a concurring opinion noting that the complaint of Arizona failed to allege that the New Mexico tax affects the electric rates paid by Arizona consumers, and that Arizona was not sufficiently affected by the tax to justify the original jurisdiction of the court. [1] Because the Arizona electric companies, including the Salt River Project, which is a unit of the Arizona state government, had access to a state court to litigate the issue, Stevens concurred in the judgment.

Subsequent developments

The case that the three electric companies had filed in state court eventually was appealed to the Supreme Court. In Arizona Public Service Co. v. Snead , 441 U.S. 141 (1979), the Court held that the New Mexico energy tax was invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution in light of a federal statute prohibiting such a tax. [2] The federal statute had been enacted specifically to prohibit state electric generation and transmission taxes, such as the New Mexico energy tax, that discriminate against interstate commerce. [2]

Related Research Articles

Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (2005) is a California Supreme Court opinion by then-Associate Justice Janice R. Brown interpreting the state's SLAPP statute. Specifically, the case holds that an appeal from a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion stays all trial court proceedings: "The perfecting of an appeal from the denial of a special motion to strike automatically stays all further trial court proceedings on the merits upon the causes of action affected by the motion...you have a right not to be dragged through the courts because you exercised your constitutional rights."

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court decision involving the original jurisdiction of the federal district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 549 U.S. 443 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case about attorney's fees in bankruptcy cases. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion for a unanimous court.

The Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) is an independent administrative agency within the state government which regulates public utilities and certain taxi cab and other passenger services in Maryland. Similar to other state Public Utilities Commissions, the Maryland PSC regulates and sets tariff rates for natural gas, electricity distribution, local telephone, water, and sewage disposal companies. The PSC also sets the tariff rates for pilot services for vessels and privately owned toll bridges, approves the construction of electric generating plants and overhead transmission lines with a voltage above 69 kV, and licenses retail natural gas and electricity suppliers. The PSC offices are located in Baltimore in the William Donald Schaefer Building.

Burnham v. Superior Court of California, 495 U.S. 604 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether a state court may, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident of the state who is served with process while temporarily visiting the state. All nine justices unanimously agreed that this basis for personal jurisdiction—known as "transient jurisdiction"—is constitutionally permissible. However, the Court failed to produce a majority opinion, as the members were sharply divided on the reasons for the decision, reflecting two fundamentally different approaches to how due-process issues are to be analyzed. Justice Scalia wrote the lead opinion, joined in whole or part by three other Justices. Justice Brennan wrote an opinion joined by three other Justices. Justices White and Stevens wrote separate opinions.

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's SB 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement that wished to enforce federal immigration laws. The issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The Court ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 were preempted by federal law but left other parts of the law intact, including a provision that allowed law enforcement to investigate a person's immigration status.

McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164 (1973), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States holding that Arizona has no jurisdiction to impose a tax on the income of Navajo Indians residing on the Navajo Reservation and whose income is wholly derived from reservation sources.

Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (1974), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning aboriginal title in the United States. The original suit in this matter was the first modern-day Native American land claim litigated in the federal court system rather than before the Indian Claims Commission. It was also the first to go to final judgement.

County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State, 470 U.S. 226 (1985), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning aboriginal title in the United States. The case, sometimes referred to as Oneida II, was "the first Indian land claim case won on the basis of the Nonintercourse Act."

Four Corners Generating Station

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.

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.

Numerous lawsuits and ballot challenges, based on conspiracy theories related to Barack Obama's eligibility for the United States presidency, were filed following his first election in 2008 and over the course of his two terms as president. These actions sought to have Obama disqualified from running for, or being confirmed for, the Presidency of the United States, to declare his actions in office to be null and void, or to compel him to release additional documentation related to his U.S. citizenship.

Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1974), is an administrative law case of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that extensive state regulation of a public utility does not transform its acts into state action that is reviewable by a federal court under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court tested the basic constitutional right of prison inmates’ access to legal documents prior to court. Prison authorities would consequently be required to provide legal assistance and counsel to inmates, whether it be through a trained legal professional or access to a legal library. Multiple prisoners alleged that they were denied access to the courts due to lack of an adequate legal library and assistance with court related documents.

Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the State of Arizona does not have jurisdiction to try a civil case between a non-Indian doing business on a reservation with tribal members who reside on the reservation, the proper forum for such cases being the tribal court.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities.

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified procedures for removing a class action lawsuit from state court to federal court. The case involved a dispute about revenue from oil and gas leases in which the defendant filed a motion to remove the case from a state court in Kansas to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. However, the plaintiff argued that the defendant's motion was defective because the defendant's notice of removal did not include evidence demonstrating that the amount in controversy satisfied the jurisdictional threshold. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas ultimately ruled the case should be returned to the state court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit declined to review the district court's decision.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, 580 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the consequences of violating the False Claims Act's requirement that cases be kept under seal. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that a violation of the False Claim Act's seal requirement does not require the dismissal of a complaint.

Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States When cases are heard without going through lower courts

The Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction in a small class of cases described in Article III, section 2, of the United States Constitution and further delineated by statute.

Before Election Day of the 2020 United States presidential election, lawsuits related to the voting process were filed in various states. Many of these lawsuits were related to measures taken by state legislatures and election officials in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Arizona v. New Mexico, 425 U.S. 794 (1976).
  2. 1 2 3 4 Arizona Public Service Co. v. Snead , 441 U.S. 141 (1979).
  3. Massachusetts v. Missouri, 308 U.S. 1 (1939).
  4. Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91 (1972).