a sovereign or those with whom it deals.” Jefferson County v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423, 436, 119 S.Ct. 2069, 144 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999) (quoting Davis v. Michigan Dep’t of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 811, 109 S.Ct. 1500, 103 L.Ed.2d 891 (1989)). Thus, a locality may constitutionally impose a use tax on a private citizen or corporation utilizing or possessing government property in connection with the private citizen’s or corporation’s own commercial activities, regardless of whether those commercial activities arise out of a contractual relationship with the government. See New Mexico, 455 U.S. at 733, 102 S.Ct. 1373; City of Detroit v. Murray Corp., 355 U.S. 489, 493, 78 S.Ct. 458, 2 L.Ed.2d 441 (1958) (“Murray Corp.”); United States v. Township of Muskeg , 462, 97 S.Ct. 699, 50 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977) (<HOLDING>). Each of these cases, although limiting the
holding that it is clearly established that retaliation against private citizens for exercising their first amendment rights is actionable holding citizens lacked standing to challenge statute when all citizens affected in the same way holding private citizens have no standing to enforce broader state regulations contained in npdes permits holding constitutional a tax on a private citizens interest in housing on government property received as part of the private citizens compensation recognizing private right of action