Arizona v. New Mexico | |
---|---|
Decided May 24, 1976 | |
Full case name | Arizona v. New Mexico |
Citations | 425 U.S. 794 ( more ) 96 S. Ct. 1845; 48 L. Ed. 2d 376; 1976 U.S. LEXIS 117 |
Case history | |
Subsequent | Law 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 | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Per curiam | |
Concurrence | Stevens |
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]
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]
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.
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]
A lawsuit is a proceeding by one or more parties against one or more parties in a civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used with respect to a civil action brought by a plaintiff who requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or else risk default judgment. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff, and the Court may impose the legal and/or equitable remedies available against the defendant (respondent). A variety of court orders may be issued in connection with or as part of the judgment to enforce a right, award damages or restitution, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.
James David Whittemore is a senior United States district judge serving in the Tampa division of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. He was previously a Florida state trial court judge, a federal public defender, and an attorney in private practice who won a criminal case before the United States Supreme Court. As a federal judge, Whittemore presided over a number of high-profile cases, including a lawsuit against Major League Baseball to challenge its draft procedure, and the Terri Schiavo case, after the United States Congress had specifically given the Middle District of Florida jurisdiction to hear the seven-year-long fight over whether the brain-damaged Schiavo should be taken off life support.
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.
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."
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 or 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), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which 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 of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all 50 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 equal rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in 36 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.
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.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Trump was a case brought before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs, watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), hotel and restaurant owner Eric Goode, an association of restaurants known as ROC United, and an Embassy Row hotel event booker named Jill Phaneuf alleged that the defendant, President Donald Trump, was in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, a constitutional provision that bars the president or any other federal official from taking gifts or payments from foreign governments. CREW filed its complaint on January 23, 2017, shortly after Trump was inaugurated as president. An amended complaint, adding the hotel and restaurant industry plaintiffs, was filed on April 18, 2017. A second amended complaint was filed on May 10, 2017. CREW was represented by several prominent lawyers and legal scholars in the case.
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.
SunZia Wind is a 3.5-gigawatt wind farm being developed in New Mexico, United States, in Lincoln County, San Miguel County and Torrance County. When completed, this will be the largest wind project in the western hemisphere. The wind project is paired with SunZia Transmission, a 550-mile 3-gigawatt HVDC transmission line (890 km) to carry the power to Arizona and California. SunZia Wind and Transmission are owned by the privately held American company Pattern Energy. The project reached $11B of funding in late 2023. Construction started in 2023 and operation is projected to start in 2026.
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.