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 Franchise Tax Board of California, the dispute centers on whether one state can be compelled to answer in another state’s courts.
Historically, states have been understood not to be sued in the courts of other states.
The case’s financial stakes have fallen from a multimillion‑dollar dispute to roughly $100,000.
According to Professors Baude and Sachs, professors Baude and Sachs note a universal rule in the law of nations that has not been constitutionalized.
Mr. Chemerinsky argues that Congress has plenary power over Indian tribes, a principle that historically excludes state interference.
According to Mr. Chemerinsky, he also cites the Hilton v. South Carolina decision, emphasizing that adherence to precedent promotes stability and respect for judicial authority.
- [1] cd766ff6d17813714d85-r1-13c0c6a00e7e9bcb.pdf, p. 6
- [2] cd766ff6d17813714d85-r1-13c0c6a00e7e9bcb.pdf, p. 4
- [3] cd766ff6d17813714d85-r1-13c0c6a00e7e9bcb.pdf, p. 24
- [4] cd766ff6d17813714d85-r1-13c0c6a00e7e9bcb.pdf, p. 28
- [5] cd766ff6d17813714d85-r1-13c0c6a00e7e9bcb.pdf, p. 50
- [6] cd766ff6d17813714d85-r1-13c0c6a00e7e9bcb.pdf, p. 51
Background and question before the Court
Justice Sotomayor asked whether the case concerned “Nevada versus Hall.”
Justice Kagan asked how to interpret the fact that 45‑47 states joined an amicus brief, suggesting they view sovereign‑immunity power as especially important.
Justice Kagan asked whether states have attempted to enter into agreements of this sort.
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the Solicitor General’s submissions should be regarded as reflecting the United States’ views.
Justice Sotomayor asked whether the Nevada court could adjudicate the factual premises of residency and tax liability.
What each side argues
Franchise Tax Board of California
According to Franchise Tax Board of California, the Board argues that only one case in the past 200 years recognized a state’s ability to compel another state to answer, and that case cited no precedent.
Gilbert P. Hyatt
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
Mr. Chemerinsky
According to Mr. Chemerinsky, he asserts that Congress has plenary power over Indian tribes, a principle that historically excludes state interference.
According to Mr. Chemerinsky, he cites the Hilton v. South Carolina decision, emphasizing that adherence to precedent promotes stability and respect for judicial authority.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument was held at 10:03 a.m. before the Supreme Court of the United States.
Justice Sotomayor asked whether the case concerned “Nevada versus Hall.”
Justice Kagan asked how to interpret the fact that 45‑47 states joined an amicus brief, suggesting they view sovereign‑immunity power as especially important.
Justice Kagan asked whether states have attempted to enter into agreements of this sort.
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the Solicitor General’s submissions should be regarded as reflecting the United States’ views.
Justice Sotomayor asked whether the Nevada court could adjudicate the factual premises of residency and tax liability.
- [1] cd766ff6d17813714d85-r1-13c0c6a00e7e9bcb.pdf, p. 2
- [2] cd766ff6d17813714d85-r1-13c0c6a00e7e9bcb.pdf, p. 5
- [3] cd766ff6d17813714d85-r1-13c0c6a00e7e9bcb.pdf, p. 43
- [4] cd766ff6d17813714d85-r1-13c0c6a00e7e9bcb.pdf, p. 45
- [5] cd766ff6d17813714d85-r1-13c0c6a00e7e9bcb.pdf, p. 45
- [6] cd766ff6d17813714d85-r1-13c0c6a00e7e9bcb.pdf, p. 48
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.
- cd766ff6d17813714d85-r1-13c0c6a00e7e9bcb.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.