This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioner (William M. Jay), the United States argues that the case falls under Title 26 tax‑refund provisions, asserting that the respondents have already received the full tax refund and interest.
According to Petitioner (William M. Jay), the United States further contends that because the respondents cannot proceed under the exclusive tax‑refund procedure, they cannot plead constitutional damages instead.
According to Respondents (Patricia A. Millett), clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co. argues that the government must assert a plausible basis for tax liability to invoke the tax‑refund scheme, and that the government has not done so.
According to Ms. Millett, clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co. maintains that any tax is one that the government asserts as valid; it need not be correct, only asserted.
Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co. points out that there is no administrative avenue such as tax court for this particular tax.
According to Mr. Jay, the United States asserts that the tax on coal mined in the United States is facially constitutional.
According to Ms. Millett, clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co. argues that a claimant need only show an overpayment, not that they went through the administrative scheme.
- [1] 92df79efb5dd382df3ba-r1-81dc6d9f86dcaba9.pdf, p. 5
- [2] 92df79efb5dd382df3ba-r1-81dc6d9f86dcaba9.pdf, p. 5
- [3] 92df79efb5dd382df3ba-r1-81dc6d9f86dcaba9.pdf, p. 17
- [4] 92df79efb5dd382df3ba-r1-81dc6d9f86dcaba9.pdf, p. 20
- [5] 92df79efb5dd382df3ba-r1-81dc6d9f86dcaba9.pdf, p. 28
- [6] 92df79efb5dd382df3ba-r1-81dc6d9f86dcaba9.pdf, pp. 45–46
- [7] 92df79efb5dd382df3ba-r1-81dc6d9f86dcaba9.pdf, p. 38
Background and question before the Court
Justice Scalia asked: “Mr. Jay, is the government running with the fox and chasing with the hounds?”
Justice Ginsburg asked: “But why shouldn't it be a suit contesting the constitutionality? … what is the point of going through any kind of administrative process of the refund route?”
Justice Ginsburg asked: “Nothing different from what it is now, but just Congress makes clear that a tax and alleged violation of the Export Clause falls within the term ‘any Internal Revenue tax’?”
Justice Scalia asked: “Why is the Export Clause so, so significant? The only other self‑executing constitutional clause that provides for damages automatically that comes to mind is the Takings Clause.”
Chief Justice Roberts asked: “Plus you get interest.”
Justice Kennedy asked: “Is the interest the same in amount in either case?”
Justice Ginsburg asked: “BUT — the use of any Internal Revenue tax, and your whole argument is this isn’t an Internal Revenue tax.”
- [1] 92df79efb5dd382df3ba-r1-81dc6d9f86dcaba9.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 92df79efb5dd382df3ba-r1-81dc6d9f86dcaba9.pdf, p. 8
- [3] 92df79efb5dd382df3ba-r1-81dc6d9f86dcaba9.pdf, p. 20
- [4] 92df79efb5dd382df3ba-r1-81dc6d9f86dcaba9.pdf, p. 25
- [5] 92df79efb5dd382df3ba-r1-81dc6d9f86dcaba9.pdf, p. 36
- [6] 92df79efb5dd382df3ba-r1-81dc6d9f86dcaba9.pdf, p. 37
- [7] 92df79efb5dd382df3ba-r1-81dc6d9f86dcaba9.pdf, p. 38
What each side argues
Petitioner (United States)
According to Petitioner (William M. Jay), the United States argues that the case is governed by Title 26, and that the respondents have already received the full tax refund and interest.
According to Petitioner (William M. Jay), the United States contends that because the respondents cannot proceed under the exclusive tax‑refund procedure, they cannot claim constitutional damages.
According to Mr. Jay, the United States asserts that the tax on coal mined in the United States is facially constitutional.
Respondents (Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co.)
According to Respondents (Patricia A. Millett), respondents argue that the government must assert a plausible basis for tax liability to invoke the tax‑refund scheme, and that it has not done so.
According to Ms. Millett, respondents maintain that any tax is one that the government asserts as valid, regardless of correctness.
According to Ms. Millett, respondents argue that a claimant need only show an overpayment, not that they went through the administrative scheme.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice Scalia, the oral argument featured Justice Scalia questioning the government’s conduct and the significance of the Export Clause.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg raised questions about whether the suit should contest the constitutionality of the tax versus pursuing the administrative refund route.
Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy inquired about the interest that would be due under the tax‑refund scheme.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 92df79efb5dd382df3ba-r1-81dc6d9f86dcaba9.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.