A Curious Choice: Hibbs v. Winn as a Case Study of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's Balancing Jurisprudence
January 2005
DISCLAIMER: This text has been transcribed automatically and may contain substantial inaccuracies due to the limitations of automatic transcription technology. This transcript is intended only to make the content of this document more easily discoverable and searchable. If you would like to quote the exact text of this document in any piece of work or research, please view the original using the link above and gather your quote directly from the source. The Sandra Day O'Connor Institute does not warrant, represent, or guarantee in any way that the text below is accurate.
Article Text
(Excerpt, Automatically generated)
Note
A CURIOUS CHOICE: Hibbs v. Winn as a Case Study of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's Balancing Jurisprudence
C. Lincoln Combst
INTRODUCTION
At first glance, the United States Supreme Court opinion in Hibbs v. Winn1 is a seemingly innocuous discussion of a highly technical issue: the statutory interpretation and legislative history of the Tax Injunction Act.2 A closer look, however, reveals that the case subtly demonstrates the deep ideological divisions of the Rehnquist Court, and gives some insight into arguably the Court's most crucial decisionmaker. As is typical of many controversial decisions of the current Court, the Court split 5-4 along familiar lines with the liberal justices on one side and the conservative wing of the Court on the other.3 And, as is not unusual during her time on the Court,4 Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is in the five-Justice majority.5 What
t J.D. Candidate, May 2006, Arizona State University College of Law; B.A., University of California at San Diego, 1994; Master of Sports Administration. Ohio University, 1997. The author would like to thank Arizona Supreme Court Justice and The College of Law at Arizona State University Adjunct Professor of Law Andrew Hurwitz for his guidance and insight in selecting this topic and writing this article.
I. 124 S. Ct. 2276 (2004).
- 28 u.s.c. § 1341 (2004).
See, e.g., Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000); United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995); Planned Parenthood ofS.E. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
NANCY