Justice O’Connor, Concurring
| Topic: Economic Activity* | Court vote: 9–0 | |
| Note: No other Justices joined this opinion. | ||
| Citation: 488 U.S. 252 | Docket: 87–826 | Audio: Listen to this case's oral arguments at Oyez |
* As categorized by the Washington University Law Supreme Court Database
DISCLAIMER: Only United States Reports are legally valid sources for Supreme Court opinions. The text below is provided for ease of access only. If you need to cite the exact text of this opinion or if you would like to view the opinions of the other Justices in this case, please view the original United States Report at the Library of Congress or Justia. The Sandra Day O'Connor Institute does not in any way represent, warrant, or guarantee that the text below is accurate."
Opinion
JUSTICE O'CONNOR, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I agree that the Illinois Telecommunications Excise Tax Act does not violate the Commerce Clause, and join Parts I, II-A, II-D, and III of the Court's opinion. I write separately to explain why I do not join Parts II-B and II-C. First, I am still unsure of the need and authority for applying the internal consistency test to state taxes challenged under the Commerce Clause. See American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Scheiner, 483 U. S. 266, 483 U. S. 303 (1987) (O'CONNOR, J., dissenting). I therefore do not join in the Court's application of that test to the Tax Act. Ante at 488 U. S. 261. Second, I agree with JUSTICE STEVENS that a State may not discriminate among its own residents by placing a heavier tax on those who engage in interstate commerce than those who merely engage in local commerce. Ante at 488 U. S. 268 (STEVENS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Accordingly, I cannot join the Court's statement that "[i]t is not a purpose of the Commerce Clause to protect state residents from their own state taxes." Ante at 488 U. S. 266.
Header photo: United States Supreme Court. Credit: Patrick McKay / Flickr - CC.