CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Nov 10, 2010
|Feb 22, 2011||7-2||Kagan||OT 2010|
Holding: The railroad can challenge Alabama's sales and use taxes, which are imposed on railroads but not their main competitors, as discriminatory under the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976.
Plain English Holding: A railroad can challenge Alabama's sales and use taxes, which are imposed on railroads but not their main competitors, as discriminatory under the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Elena Kagan on February 22, 2011. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Ginsburg.
- Opinion recap in CSX v. Alabama Depâ€™t of Revenue
- Argument recap: Court considers claims of discrimination against railroads
- Argument preview: Challenging a tax on rail carriers
Briefs and Documents
- Brief for Petitioner CSX Transportation, Inc.
- Brief for Respondent Alabama Department of Revenue and Cynthia Underwood, Assistant Revenue Commissioner
- Reply Brief for Petitioner CSX Transportation, Inc.
- Brief for the United States in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Council on State Taxation in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Association of American Railroads in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the States of Washington, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming in Support of Respondent
- Brief for American Trucking Associations, Inc., in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the Alabama Education Association, School Superintendents of Alabama, Council for Leaders in Alabama Schools, the Alabama Association of School Boards, Alabama State University, Auburn University, the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama, Jacksonville State University, Troy University, the University of Montevallo, University of North Alabama, and University of South Alabama in Support of Respondent
- Opinion below (11th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari (unavailable)
- Brief in opposition (unavailable)
- Petitioner’s reply (unavailable)
- Amicus brief of the United States (invited) (grant)
- Petitioner’s reply brief to the amicus brief of the United States
- Respondents’ reply brief to the amicus brief of the United States