October Term 2009 · Docket 08-969
Does a city's claim for unpaid taxes count as property under federal antitrust law?
Hemi Group argues that a city's tax claim is not property. The City of New York argues it is property.
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. Barnhouse argued that possessory and use taxes are difficult to collect.
He noted the city collected only 40 to 55 cents on the dollar.
Mr. Koerner argued that the definition of property depends on prior case law.
Justice Scalia asked why this case differs from established antitrust property definitions.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
- 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 33-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-51 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 7-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-17
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether a government tax claim fits the legal definition of property. This definition controls the scope of federal antitrust protections.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 3, 2009.
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
Hemi Group wants the Court to hold that tax claims are not property.
The City of New York wants the Court to hold that tax claims are property.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
What each side says
Hemi Group argues that antitrust laws exclude government tax entitlements from the definition of property.
The City of New York argues that a sovereign's right to collect taxes is property.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked why money is not property.
Justice Ginsburg asked why prior tax cases do not settle the property question here.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-51 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 7-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-17
Why it matters
The outcome defines the scope of federal antitrust law. It determines whether cities can sue private entities for interfering with tax collection.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
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 10, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 11-21
- 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 33-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-51 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 7-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-17
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 25, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
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.