MARYLAND et al. v. LOUISIANA
No. 83,
Orig.
Decided May 26, 1981
Decree entered June 15, 1981
DECREE
This cause having come on to be heard on the exceptions to the Reports of the Special Master dated May 14, 1980, and September 15, 1980, and having been argued by counsel and this Court having stated its conclusions in its opinion announced May 26, 1981, 451 U. S. 725, and having considered the positions of the respective parties as to the terms of this decree, It Is Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed As Follows:
1. The exceptions of the defendant State of Louisiana to the Report of the Special Master dated May 14, 1980, are overruled and accordingly:
(a) the motions of the State of New Jersey, the United States and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation et al., for leave to intervene as party plaintiffs are granted; and
(b) the motion of Associated Gas Distributors for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted.
2. The exceptions of the defendant State of Louisiana to the Report of the Special Master dated September 15, 1980, are overruled, the plaintiff’s exceptions are sustained to the extent indicated in this Court’s opinion, and accordingly:
(a) the motion of the defendant State of Louisiana to dismiss the bill of complaint is denied; and
(b) the motion of the plaintiff States for judgment on the pleadings is granted in part.
3. The motion of the plaintiff States for entry of decree and the motion of the Solicitor General for entry of decree are granted. The motion of the defendant State of Louisiana for entry of decree is denied.
4. Section 1 of the Louisiana First Use Tax Act, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §47:1303C (West Supp. 1981), violates the Supremacy Clause and the Louisiana First Use Tax Act, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§47:1301^7:1307 (West Supp. 1981), is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.
5. Effective with the date of entry of this decree, the defendant State of Louisiana, its officers, agents, and employees are permanently enjoined and prohibited from collecting the Louisiana First Use Tax.
6. Within thirty (30) days after the entry of this decree, the defendant State of Louisiana shall:
(a) render to the plaintiffs and file with the Court a true, full, accurate, and appropriate account of any and all revenues collected pursuant to the First Use Tax Act and of the interest earned by the defendant as a result of its investment of these revenues and the interest earned thereon; and
(b) refund to the taxpayers any and all revenues collected pursuant to the First Use Tax together with any and all interest earned as a result of its investment of these revenues and the interest earned thereon, but to the extent that the First Use Tax revenues and the interest earned thereon have been invested by the defendant State of Louisiana in interest-bearing securities, the defendant State of Louisiana shall transfer to the taxpayers the proceeds of principal and interest from such securities as each of such securities matures.
7. The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such further proceedings, enter such orders, and issue such writs as may from time to time be deemed necessary or advisable to give proper force and effect to this decree or to effectuate the rights of the parties in the premises.
Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions or this decree.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.