October Term 2010 · Docket 09-520

Does a tax on railroads but not trucks violate federal law?

CSX argues Alabama taxes railroads unfairly. The state says the tax is neutral.

Official caption
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Dept. of Revenue
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    CSX argues the tax discriminates against railroads.

    Alabama argues the tax is neutral and rational.

    Justices questioned the definition of discrimination.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Alabama taxes railroads but exempts trucking companies. CSX claims this violates federal law. The state argues the tax is neutral. The Court must define discrimination.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 10, 2010.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

CSX wants the tax struck down as discriminatory.

Alabama wants the tax upheld as neutral.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

CSX argues the tax singles out railroads.

Alabama argues the tax applies to a neutral class.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked how to limit the term discrimination.

Justice Kagan asked for the rationale behind the distinction.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines when state taxes violate federal law. It affects how states tax different industries. It clarifies the scope of federal preemption.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON