Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Amazon Services, LLC operated the online marketplace Amazon.com, which allowed third-party merchants to sell products to South Carolina residents. In 2016, although Amazon Services collected and remitted sales tax for products it and its affiliates sold, it did not do so for sales made by third-party merchants. After an audit, the South Carolina Department of Revenue assessed Amazon Services for $12,490,502.15 in unpaid sales taxes, penalties, and interest, claiming that Amazon Services was legally required to collect and remit sales taxes on third-party merchant sales due to the company's significant involvement in those transactions.Amazon Services contested the assessment before the South Carolina Administrative Law Court, which upheld the Department of Revenue’s determination, finding Amazon Services was “engaged in the business of selling” under the South Carolina Sales and Use Tax Act and thus responsible for remitting the tax. Amazon Services appealed, and the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the Administrative Law Court’s ruling, agreeing with the interpretation that Amazon Services’ role in third-party sales triggered the statutory obligation to collect and remit sales tax.The Supreme Court of South Carolina granted certiorari and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that, under the plain language of subsection 12-36-910(A) of the South Carolina Sales and Use Tax Act, Amazon Services was “engaged in the business of selling” due to its comprehensive control and involvement in third-party transactions and was therefore required to remit sales tax on those sales. The Court also held that this application did not violate due process, as the relevant statutory provisions were in effect prior to the challenged assessment, and clarified that its holding was not based on interpreting tax statutes broadly but on ordinary statutory interpretation principles. View "Amazon Services v. SCDOR" on Justia Law

A Texas-based company sold bunker fuel to primarily foreign-registered vessels at Texas ports, transferring possession and control of the fuel in Texas. The company initially paid franchise taxes on these sales, but later sought a refund, arguing that these transactions should not be attributed to Texas for franchise-tax purposes because the fuel was not used, sold, or consumed in Texas. The company contended that, under the relevant statute, sales should be sourced to the buyer’s ultimate destination or place of use, not merely the location where possession was transferred.After the Texas Comptroller denied the refund, the company exhausted administrative remedies and filed suit, also challenging the validity of regulations that sourced sales to Texas based on the point of delivery to the buyer. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, focusing on whether the statutory phrase “delivered or shipped to a buyer in this state” refers to the place where the buyer takes delivery or to the location where the buyer uses or consumes the goods. The trial court ruled in favor of the Comptroller, upholding the regulations. On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas affirmed, finding the statute unambiguously sources sales based on where the buyer receives the property.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case to resolve the statutory interpretation. The Court held that the statute sources receipts from sales of tangible personal property to Texas if the seller transfers possession and control to the buyer at a location in Texas, regardless of where the buyer ultimately uses or consumes the goods. The Court found that the Comptroller’s rules were consistent with this interpretation and thus valid. The judgment of the court of appeals was affirmed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "NUSTAR ENERGY, L.P. v. HANCOCK" on Justia Law

A city-owned zoo in Alameda County is managed through a contract with a nonprofit corporation. In 2022, local voters approved an initiative, Measure Y, which imposed a parcel tax to fund zoo operations. The measure specified that tax revenue would be placed in a city fund and distributed to the “Zoo Operator” for certain uses. Measure Y identified the Conservation Society of California, the current nonprofit operator, by name and assigned it specific duties and powers related to the new tax revenue. The measure stated it would take effect if approved by a simple majority of voters and received 63.1% support.Following the election, the Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association and an individual filed a reverse validation action in the Superior Court of Alameda County, seeking to invalidate Measure Y. They argued that the measure violated article II, section 12 of the California Constitution by naming a private corporation to perform functions or have duties, and that the measure required a two-thirds supermajority to pass. The trial court sustained demurrers to the supermajority claims, finding only a simple majority was needed, and granted judgment on the pleadings as to the constitutional claims. The court concluded that any reference to the Conservation Society was either not a violation or, if so, was severable, leaving the rest of the measure valid. Judgment was entered for the city and the Conservation Society.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, found that Measure Y’s references to the Conservation Society as the “Zoo Operator” violated article II, section 12 because they assigned specific functions and duties to a named private corporation. However, the court held these references could be severed without affecting the remainder of the measure, which would remain valid. The court further held that only a simple majority vote was required for passage. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed as modified to reflect severance. View "Alameda County Taxpayers' Assn., Inc. v. City of Oakland" on Justia Law

A group of organizations challenged the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) policy permitting the sharing of taxpayer address information with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for immigration enforcement. The plaintiffs initiated suit after reports that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was seeking addresses from the IRS to locate undocumented immigrants. The IRS and DHS subsequently formalized an agreement (Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU) specifying procedures for ICE to request taxpayer addresses from the IRS for use in nontax criminal investigations, provided statutory requirements were met.The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. After denying a temporary restraining order, the District Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The District Court found that at least one plaintiff had standing and concluded the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their claims. Specifically, the court found that 26 U.S.C. § 6103(i)(2) unambiguously allowed the IRS to disclose address information in response to valid requests, and that the IRS’s prior internal guidelines to the contrary did not have the force of law. The court also determined that the MOU was a nonbinding policy statement, not a final agency action subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs likely had standing, but were unlikely to succeed on the merits. The court ruled that § 6103(i)(2) clearly authorizes the IRS to disclose taxpayer address information, and that the MOU was not a reviewable agency action. It further held that any challenge to the agency’s change of interpretation was not viable because the court’s interpretation of the statute controls. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed. View "Centro de Trabajadores Unidos v. Bessent" on Justia Law

Several organizations and individuals petitioned to prevent the Idaho State Tax Commission from implementing a newly enacted parental choice tax credit. This tax credit, established in 2025, provides refundable credits to parents, guardians, and foster parents for certain private educational expenses, including private school tuition and related services, for dependent students not enrolled in public schools. The law caps total annual credits and includes prioritization based on income and previous participation. The petitioners, including advocacy groups, a school district, and parents, argued that the statute creates a separate, non-public education system funded by public resources, allegedly violating the Idaho Constitution’s mandate for a single, general, uniform, and thorough system of public schools. They also claimed the statute failed the “public purpose doctrine,” asserting it primarily benefits private rather than public interests.Before the Idaho Supreme Court, the petitioners sought a writ of prohibition, which would prevent the Tax Commission from carrying out the law. The respondents, including the State and the Idaho Legislature, contested the petitioners’ standing and the merits of the constitutional claims. The Supreme Court determined that the petitioners lacked traditional standing but, given the urgency and importance of the constitutional question and the absence of another suitable challenger, relaxed standing requirements to address the merits.The Supreme Court of Idaho denied the petition. It held that Article IX, section 1 of the Idaho Constitution does not restrict the legislature from enacting educational measures beyond the required public school system, so long as the public system remains intact and constitutionally sufficient. The Court also found that the tax credit serves a legitimate public purpose—supporting parental choice in education—even if private entities benefit. The petition was dismissed, and the Tax Commission was awarded attorney fees and costs. View "Committee to Protect and Preserve v. State" on Justia Law

Disney Platform Distribution, BAMTech, and Hulu, subsidiaries of the Walt Disney Company, provide video streaming services to subscribers in the City of Santa Barbara. In 2022, the City’s Tax Administrator notified these companies that they had failed to collect and remit video users’ taxes under Ordinance 5471 for the period January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2020, resulting in substantial assessments. The companies appealed to the City Administrator, and a retired Associate Justice served as hearing officer, ultimately upholding the Tax Administrator’s decision.Following the administrative appeal, the companies sought judicial review by filing a petition for a writ of administrative mandate in the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County. The trial court denied their petition, finding that the Ordinance does apply to video streaming services and rejecting arguments that the Ordinance violated the Internet Tax Freedom Act, the First Amendment, and Article XIII C of the California Constitution. The trial court also found there was no violation of Public Utilities Code section 799’s notice requirements, as the City’s actions did not constitute a change in the tax base or adoption of a new tax.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that the Ordinance applies to video streaming services, interpreting the term “channel” in its ordinary, non-technical sense and finding that the voters intended technological neutrality. The court further held that the Ordinance does not violate the Internet Tax Freedom Act because video streaming subscriptions and DVD sales/rentals are not “similar” under the Act. Additionally, the court concluded the tax is not a content-based regulation of speech under the First Amendment, and that delayed enforcement did not constitute a tax increase requiring additional voter approval or notice under the California Constitution or Public Utilities Code section 799. View "Disney Platform Distribution v. City of Santa Barbara" on Justia Law

This case concerns the State Water Resources Control Board's intervention in the Tulare Lake groundwater subbasin pursuant to California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (the Act). After local agencies in the subbasin submitted a groundwater sustainability plan that the Department of Water Resources twice determined to be inadequate, the State Board designated the basin as probationary in April 2024. This designation triggered state-imposed monitoring, reporting, and fee obligations on certain groundwater extractors. In response, the Kings County Farm Bureau and others filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint, asserting that the State Board exceeded its authority and challenging the validity of the designation and associated fees on several grounds.The Superior Court of Kings County addressed both a demurrer filed by the State Board and a request from the Farm Bureau for a preliminary injunction. The trial court dismissed the equal protection claim with leave to amend, but overruled the demurrer as to claims that (1) the State Board used improper “underground regulations” not adopted under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), (2) the imposed extraction fee constituted an unlawful tax, and (3) general declaratory relief was appropriate. The trial court also granted a preliminary injunction, temporarily halting the State Board’s enforcement activities.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the trial court’s order overruling the demurrer. The appellate court held that all actions by the State Board taken under sections 10735.2 and 10735.8 of the Act—including the designation of a probationary basin—are exempt from the APA unless the State Board voluntarily opts to adopt regulations using APA procedures. Therefore, the claim for improper “underground regulations” could not proceed. The court also held that a challenge to the extraction fee as an unlawful tax was barred by the constitutional “pay first” rule, as no exception applied. Lastly, the court determined that declaratory relief was unavailable because the Legislature provided for review of State Board actions exclusively by writ of mandate. The appellate court ordered the trial court to grant the demurrer without leave to amend as to these three claims. View "State Water Resources Control Bd. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

A nonprofit religious organization based in Queens purchased a 73-acre parcel in the Town of Callicoon, Sullivan County, in 2018. Although the organization originally intended to use the property as a retreat center, testimony established that its actual use involved farming vegetables on about one cleared acre for charitable distribution to low-income residents in Queens. Occasional overnight stays involved religious activities, but there was no evidence of regular organized religious services or use as a retreat center. The Town Supervisor, who lived nearby and farmed part of the property without a formal agreement, confirmed the farming use but did not observe overnight retreats.After the Town Assessor denied a religious use tax exemption for the property for the 2021 tax year, the organization filed a grievance complaint, which was denied by the Town’s Board of Assessment Review. The organization then initiated an RPTL article 7 proceeding in Supreme Court, challenging the denial. A similar process occurred for the 2022 tax year, and both proceedings were joined. Supreme Court held a nonjury trial, found all witnesses credible, credited the organization’s testimony about actual use, and granted the petitions for both tax years, concluding the property was exempt. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, with one Justice dissenting.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case. It held that the lower courts applied the correct legal standards: the burden to prove entitlement to exemption rests with the party seeking it, while the burden to prove a zoning violation rests with the municipality. The Court of Appeals found record support for Supreme Court’s factual findings and concluded that the Town failed to prove a zoning violation sufficient to defeat the exemption for both years. The order of the Appellate Division was affirmed, with costs. View "Matter of First United Methodist Church in Flushing v Assessor, Town of Callicoon" on Justia Law

A corporation owned by a federally recognized Indian tribe, along with several tribal officials, was alleged by the State of California to have violated state cigarette tax laws and regulations. The corporation manufactured and distributed cigarettes in California, including to non-tribal consumers, without collecting or remitting required state excise taxes or payments under the Master Settlement Agreement. California claimed that the corporation and its officials distributed contraband cigarettes not listed on the state’s approved directory and failed to comply with shipping, recordkeeping, and tax collection requirements under the federal Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act). Despite warnings and being placed on a federal non-compliance list, the corporation continued its operations.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California considered the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court found that the corporation, as an arm of the tribe, was shielded by tribal sovereign immunity and dismissed claims against it. However, the court allowed claims for injunctive relief against the individual tribal officials in their official capacities to proceed, holding that the Ex parte Young doctrine permitted such relief under the PACT Act. The court also denied the officials’ claims of qualified immunity for personal capacity claims, reasoning that qualified immunity did not apply to enforcement actions brought by a state under a federal statute.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Ninth Circuit held that the PACT Act does not preclude Ex parte Young actions for prospective injunctive relief against tribal officials, as the Act does not limit who may be sued or the types of relief available, nor does it contain a sufficiently detailed remedial scheme to displace Ex parte Young. The court also held that qualified immunity does not shield tribal officials from California’s claims for civil penalties and money damages under the PACT Act. View "STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. DEL ROSA" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on groundwater management in the Tulare Lake groundwater subbasin, a high-priority basin under California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (the Act). Local groundwater agencies developed and submitted a sustainability plan for the subbasin, but the Department of Water Resources twice found the plan inadequate. Following these determinations, the State Water Resources Control Board designated the Tulare subbasin as probationary, triggering state intervention and new monitoring, reporting, and fee requirements. In response, Kings County Farm Bureau and other parties filed a writ of mandate and complaint, challenging the State Board’s authority and actions, including the probationary designation and associated fees.The Superior Court of Kings County reviewed the Farm Bureau’s claims. It granted a preliminary injunction halting the State Board’s implementation of the probationary designation and denied in part the State Board’s demurrer to the complaint. Specifically, the trial court dismissed the equal protection claim with leave to amend but allowed the Farm Bureau to proceed on claims alleging improper underground regulations, unconstitutional fees, and general declaratory relief. The State Board then sought appellate review of the trial court’s order overruling its demurrer.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the trial court’s decision de novo. It held that the Act exempts the State Board’s actions under the relevant statutory sections from the Administrative Procedures Act, precluding claims based on alleged underground regulations. The court further found that challenges to the extraction fees as unlawful taxes are barred by the “pay first” rule, requiring payment before judicial review. Finally, the court determined that declaratory relief is unavailable where the Legislature has provided a writ of mandate as the exclusive remedy. The appellate court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order overruling the demurrer and to grant the demurrer without leave to amend as to the sixth, seventh, and ninth causes of action. View "State Water Resources Control Bd. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law