from their secure, state-revenue-protective moorings.”). The Fourth Circuit and the Secretary both rely on the fact that Hibbs cited U.S. Brewers in a footnote. See id. at 109-10 n. 11, 124 S.Ct. 2276. In that footnote, the Court recognized that U.S. Brewers was not based on the Butler Act, but on principles of comity, and quoted U.S. Brewers’s admonition against ordering a state to collect a tax not authorized by its legislature. Id. But unlike the Secretary, we do not read this footnote as condoning the result in U.S. Brewers. Rather, the entire footnote is devoted to discussing cases raised by Arizona which were in obvious tension with the Court’s holding. Id. While the Court made some effort at distinguishing some of the cases, it made little attempt at distinguishing others. Id. (<HOLDING>). The Court did observe that U.S. Brewers was
holding that appellate court reviewing trial courts habeas corpus ruling must review record evidence in light most favorable to ruling and uphold ruling absent abuse of discretion recognizing and explaining but not explicitly abrogating the contrary ruling in aclu foundation v bridges 334 f3d 416 5th cir2003 and the arguably inconsistent ruling in in re gillis 836 f2d 1001 6th cir1988 recognizing that ruling of one trial judge does not preclude another trial judge reconsidering interlocutory ruling holding if an appellant conceded trial courts ruling was not prejudicial he could not assert on appeal the ruling denied him a fair trial holding error was not preserved where the courts ruling was not unequivocal and whether the evidence offered by the state fell within the parameters of the ruling was uncertain