Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal (1998)

We have said that “[t]he object of the Privileges and Immunities Clause is to ‘strongly . . . constitute the citizens of the United States [as] one peo- 4 MCBURNEY v. YOUNG Opinion of the Court ple,’ by ‘plac[ing] the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the ad- vantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned.’ ” Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U. S. 287, 296 (1998) (quoting Paul v. Virginia, 8 …

Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 296 (1998) (quoting Paul, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) at 180 ).

Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 302 (1998) (“[T]he Privileges and Immunities Clause prohibits a State from denying nonresidents a general tax exemption provided to residents . . . .”); Austin, 420 U.S. at 661 (“[T]he fundamental privileges and immunities -30- protected by the Clause” include “an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the state.” (quotation omitted)); Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 56 (1920) (“One of the rights …

This evaluation must "be conducted with due regard for the principle that States should have considerable leeway in analyzing local evils and prescribing appropriate cures." Toomer, 334 U.S. at 396 , 68 S.Ct. 1156 , quoted in Lunding, 522 U.S. at 298, 118 S.Ct. 766 . 37 Insofar as a plaintiff challenges a State's discrimination against him with regard to privileges and immunities — an "as-applied" challenge — he need only demonstrate that his own "nonresidency presents [no] …

Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 307 (1998) (cleaned up).

Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 293 (1998); Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U.S. 656, 657 (1975); Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 184-85, 200 (1973); Blake v. McClung, 172 U.S. 239, 243 (1898).

Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 296 (1998) (cleaned up) (quoting Paul, 75 U.S. at 180 ).

Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 307 (1998).

Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 296 (1998) (citing Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168, 180 (1868)).

Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 307, 118 S.Ct. 766 , 139 L.Ed.2d 717 (1998).

See Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal, 118 S.Ct. 766, 774 (1998) ("Where nonresidents are subject to different treatment, there must be reasonable ground for . . . diversity of treatment.") (internal quotation marks omitted). 6 This assumes that if all states were required to make DSH payments to out-of-state hospitals, other states may also be obligated to make DSH payments to a particular hospital.

See generally Lunding, 522 U.S. at 297 , 118 S.Ct. 766 (1998) (“Because state legislatures must draw some distinctions in light of ‘local needs,’ they have considerable discretion in formulating tax policy.”) (Citation omitted); Shaffer, 252 U.S. at 55 , 40 S.Ct. 221 (“[W]here the question is whether a state taxing law contravenes rights secured by [the Federal Constitution], the decision must depend not upon any mere question of form, construction, or definition, but upon t…

Indeed, the United States Supreme Court reiterated this doctrine just one year ago when it declared that “[t]ax provisions imposing discriminatory treatment on nonresident individuals must be reasonable in effect and based on a substantial justification other than the fact of nonresidence.” (Lunding v New York Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 US 287, 314 [1998].) In the course of the approximately 130 years separating Ward (supra) and Lund- ing, courts have repeatedly found that th…

Co. v. Connecticut, 185 U.S. 364, 371 , 22 S.Ct. 673 , 46 L.Ed. 949 (1902). [41] Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 297 , 118 S.Ct. 766 , 139 L.Ed.2d 717 (1998) ("[A]s a practical matter, the Privileges and Immunities Clause affords no assurance of precise equality in taxation between residents and nonresidents of a particular State."). [42] Carlson III, 65 P.3d at 864 ; see also Tangier Sound Waterman's Ass'n v. Pruitt, 4 F.3d 264 , 267 (4th Cir. 1993).…

In Lunding the Court held that when confronted with a challenge under the Privileges and Immunities Clause to a law distinguishing between residents and nonresidents, a State may defend its position by demonstrating "(i) there is a substantial reason for the difference in treatment; and (ii) the discrimination practiced against nonresidents bears a substantial relationship to the State's objective." Id. at 298 (citation omitted). ¶ 12 The Court in Lunding noted that as a pra…

Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 298 (1998) (citations omitted) (explaining that “when confronted with a challenge under the Privileges and Immunities Clause to a law distinguishing between residents and nonresidents, a State may defend its position by demonstrating that ‘(i) there is a substantial reason for the difference in treatment; and (ii) the discrimination practiced against nonresidents bears a substantial relationship to the State’s objective.’”). “[A]s a practi…

Trades v. Mayor, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 222 [ 104 S.Ct. at p. 1029 ].) Further, states have-“considerable leeway” in determining whether local problems require legislative action. {Landing v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal (1998) 522 U.S. 287, 298 [ 118 S.Ct. 766, 774, 139 L.Ed.2d 717 ]; Toomer v. Witsell, supra, 334 U.S. at p. 396 [ 68 S.Ct. at p. 1162 ].) Moreover, in the higher education context, states may engage in reasonably based discriminatory conduct utilizing residen…

Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 307 (1998).

Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 307 (1998) (explaining that summary actions “do not have the same precedential value as does an opinion of [the Supreme] Court after briefing and oral argument on the merits” (cleaned up)).

Tax Appeals Trib., 522 U.S. 287, 296 (1998) (second alteration in original) (quoting Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 180 (1868)).

Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 296 (1998)).

Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 296 (1998) (first and third alterations in original) (citation omitted).

Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 296 (1998) (quoting Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168, 180 (1869)).

The court should "invalidate [the challenged restriction] only if [it] conclude[s] that the restriction is not closely related to the advancement of a substantial state interest" ( Friedman {**32 NY3d at 344}, 487 US at 65). "[A] State may defend its position by demonstrating that '(i) there is a substantial reason for the difference in treatment; and (ii) the discrimination practiced against nonresidents bears a substantial relationship to the State's objective' " ( Lunding…

Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 296 (1998) (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also U.S. Const. art.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause Pursuant to the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution, “[t]he Citizens of each State [are] entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States” (US Const, art IV, § 2, cl 1). “[T]he object of the Privileges and Immunities Clause is to ‘strongly . . . constitute the citizens of the United States [as] one people,’ by ‘placing] the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens…

Its object is to “strongly . . . constitute the citizens of the United States one people,” by “plac[ing] the citizens of each State upon the same footing with the citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned.” Lunding v New York Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 US 287, 296 ; 118 S Ct 766 ; 139 L Ed 2d 717 (1998). “[Wjhen confronted with a challenge under the Privileges and Immunities Clause to a law distinguishing betwe…

Ed. 2d 717, 729 , 118 S. Ct. 766, 774 (1998).

Ed. 2d 717, 729 , 118 S. Ct. 766, 774 (1998).

A state may defend its position by demonstrating: “(a) a substantial reason for the discrimination, and (b) a reasonable relationship between the degree of discrimination exacted and the danger sought to be averted by enactment of the discriminatory statute.” 27 Crotty, 346 F.3d at 94 ; see also Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 298 , 118 S.Ct. 766 , 139 L.Ed.2d 717 (1997).

See Lunding v. New York Tax App. Trib., 522 U.S. 287, 296 , 118 S.Ct. 766 , 139 L.Ed.2d 717 (1998) (Privileges and Immunities Clause); Herts v. Smith, 345 F.3d 581 , 587 (8th Cir.2003) (substantive due process); Booker v. City of St.

See Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287 , 118 S.Ct. 766, 774 , 139 L.Ed.2d 717 (1998) ("Where nonresidents are subject to different treatment, there must be reasonable ground for ... diversity of treatment.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 6 .

See Ward v. Maryland, 79 US (12 Wall) 418, 430, 20 L Ed 449 (1871) (recently cited by Landing v. New York Tax App. Trib., 522 US 287, 296, 118 S Ct 766 , 139 L Ed 2d 717 (1998)).

See Lunding, 522 U.S. at 298 , 118 S.Ct. 766 . 23 Article IV’s privileges and immunities, however, provides “a limitation upon the states only and in no way affects the powers of Congress over the District of Columbia,” Neild, 110 F.2d at 249 n. 3; see also Duehay v. Acacia Mut.

See Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 297 , 118 S.Ct. 766 , 139 L.Ed.2d 717 (1998) ("[A]s a practical matter, the Privileges and Immunities Clause affords no assurance of precise equality in taxation between residents and nonresidents of a particular State.

See Lunding, 522 U.S. at 298 , 118 S.Ct. 766 .

See Lunding, 522 U.S. at 314-15, 118 S.Ct. 766 (holding that a New York tax scheme granting credits for residents’ alimony payments but denying nonresidents the same credit violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause because the distinction was unrelated to the state’s connection to the *172 expense and unjustified by any state policy); Austin, 420 U.S. at 665-66 , 95 S.Ct. 1191 (holding that a New Hampshire income tax that effectively applied only to nonresidents violated…

See id. at 371 , 22 S.Ct. 673 ("It is enough that the State has secured a reasonably fair distribution of burdens....”). . 65 P.3d at 864 n. 96 (quoting Lunding, 522 U.S. at 293 , 118 S.Ct. 766 ). .

See Lunding, 522 U.S. at 297-98 , 118 S.Ct. 766 .

See Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal (1998), 522 U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 766 , 774 , 139 L.Ed.2d 717 , 729 ("The Privileges and Immunities Clause bars discrimination against citizens of other States where there is no substantial reason for the discrimination beyond the mere fact that they are citizens of other States."); see also Colgate v. Harvey (1935), 296 U.S. 404 , 433 , 56 S.Ct. 252 , 260 , 80 L.Ed. 299 ("The right of a citizen in one state to contract in another [is…

The rights are centered on ensuring that “a citizen of State A who ventures into State B [has] the same privileges which the citizens of State B enjoy.” Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 395 (1948); see also Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 296 (1998) (“The object of the Privileges and Immunities Clause is to ‘strongly ... constitute the citizens of the United States one people,’ by ‘plac[ing] the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citize…