October Term 2007 · Docket 06-666
Does Kentucky's tax exemption for local bond interest violate the Commerce Clause?
Kentucky exempts local bond interest from state tax. the sides that brought the case claim this favors local government over private competitors.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Trower argued Kentucky's tax treats private entities equally.
Mr. Brunstad argued Kentucky did not take over the national bond market.
Justice Souter questioned the relevance of prior precedent to this case.
Justice Ginsburg asked if private activity bonds were considered below.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 27-3 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 27-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-51 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-21
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Kentucky taxes interest on out-of-state municipal bonds. It exempts interest on bonds issued by Kentucky and its local governments. the sides that brought the case argue this tax scheme discriminates against interstate commerce. the opposing sides argue the tax treats all private entities equally.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 27-3 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 27-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-47
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 5, 2007.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to strike down the tax exemption as unconstitutional.
the opposing sides want the Court to uphold the tax exemption as a valid state policy.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 27-3 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 27-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-47
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the exemption favors local government over private competitors.
the opposing sides argue the exemption treats all private entities the same.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 27-3 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 27-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-47
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked if the state effectively controls the market.
Justice Breyer asked about consumer losses in the dairy industry.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-51 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-21
Why it matters
State tax policies shape the national municipal bond market. Discriminatory taxes distort interstate commerce. This case defines the limits of state tax authority.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 27-3 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 27-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-47
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-51 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-21
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 27-3 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 27-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 27-3 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 27-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-47
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.