October Term 2009 · Docket 09-223
Should federal courts resolve disputes over state tax rates?
Natural gas suppliers challenge Ohio tax rates. The state argues federal courts lack jurisdiction.
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. Mizer argued the case belongs in state court.
He cited comity and federalism principles.
Mr. Fitch addressed standing concerns raised by the Court.
Justices questioned the complexity of the state law analysis.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 45-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 45-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 51-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 51-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 51-11
- 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 17-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-51 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-19
- 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 29-31 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 47-17 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 47-17
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Ohio taxes natural gas suppliers. The suppliers claim the rates violate federal law. The state argues federal courts must abstain.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-49
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 22, 2010.
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 state wants federal courts to dismiss the case.
The suppliers want federal courts to hear the tax challenge.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-49
What each side says
The state argues federalism requires state courts to resolve tax disputes.
The suppliers argue federal courts must review potential constitutional violations.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-49
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked if the state argued Pullman abstention below.
Justice Alito asked if the case differs from Hibbs due to complexity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 45-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 45-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 51-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 51-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 51-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-51 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-19
- 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 29-31 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 47-17 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 47-17
Why it matters
This case defines federal court jurisdiction over state tax disputes. It impacts how businesses challenge state tax rates. It shapes the balance between federal and state judicial power.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-49
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 45-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 45-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 51-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 51-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 51-11
- 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 17-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-51 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-19
- 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 29-31 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 47-17 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 47-17
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 24, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-49
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.