�

California Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt No. 02-0042

Decided April 23

In Hyatt v. California Franchise Tax Board, a unanimous Supreme Court held that a citizen of one state (Nevada) may sue the government of another state (California) in his home state�s courts, under his home state�s law, and in derogation of the foreign state�s immunity statutes. While the Constitution commands states to give �full faith and credit� to a sister-state�s law, states may give zero credit and prefer their own law if they feel like it. Otherwise, the Court would have to �balance� competing state interests, and that�s a no-no. So wrote Justice O�Connor, whose abhorrence of balancing tests is a matter of record.

California argued that the zero-credit rule can�t possibly be right when one state, in preferring its own law, tramples on a sister-state�s traditional rights and core sovereign functions (here, immunity rules that protect its tax collection agents). Not so, said the Hyatt Court. Justice O�Connor, proud author of two dozen opinions extolling �traditional state�s rights,� now insists that no such rights exist. For that contention, she cites Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985), a pre-Rehnquist Court decision that held (over then-Justice Rehnquist�s shrill dissent) that the Constitution contains no judicially enforceable federalism norms.

For a sophisticated analysis of the Hyatt case, along with a clearly erroneous prediction concerning its outcome, consult the March Federalist Outlook.

�

Decision (PDF)

Petition for Certiorari (PDF)

Order Granting Petition for Rehearing (PDF)

Nevada v. Hall 440 U.S. 410 (1979)

�

�

back to main page