October Term 2014 · Docket 13-553

Does Alabama's fuel tax violate the 4-R Act?

CSX argues Alabama's fuel tax discriminates against railroads. The state claims the tax treats carriers fairly.

Official caption
Alabama Dept. of Revenue v. CSX Transp., Inc.
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

    Mr. Brasher argued the 4-R Act balances interests.

    Ms. Goldenberg agreed with the state on the tax issue.

    Mr. Phillips argued railroads pay significant sales taxes.

    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 fuel used by railroads. CSX argues this violates the 4-R Act. The state argues the tax is fair.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 9, 2014.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

CSX wants the Court to strike down the fuel tax.

Alabama wants the Court to uphold the fuel tax.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

CSX argues the tax discriminates against railroads.

Alabama argues the tax balances carrier and public needs.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked if the lower court's view could change.

Chief Justice Roberts asked about economic viability compared to competitors.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome determines how states tax railroad fuel. It affects the balance between state revenue and carrier costs.

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