Said Justice Alito, at oral argument yesterday in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (transcript). The case, discussed at SCOTUSblog, raises the question "Whether Nevada v. Hall, a 1979 Supreme Court ruling that said a state could be haled into another state’s courts without its consent, should be overruled."
Arguing for the man who sued California in Nevada, UC Berkeley law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky responded, "I think Nevada might already feel that California overwhelms it too much." But immunity isn't needed, he said, because there's still the idea of "comity," which exists in international law: "And there's no indication that that was insufficient. The reality is that this is an issue that relatively rarely arises."
Chief Justice Roberts pushed back:
Well, the remedy for the failure to accord comity at international law was recognized to be war. What remedy do the states have under your view if a state chooses not to extend comity to a sister state?
Posts
26 comments:
Lack of comity is a tragedy.
If California tried to stand on its own how long would it take before it collapsed into chaos? My guess is it could be measured in days, not months. Comity with NV prolly not much of an issue...
S Korea's supreme court upheld wage claims for forced work in Japanese factories in WWII, and assets are being seized; Japan says all claims were settled in 1965 by treaty and you can't change the signed deal.
I'd recommend counterseizing of assets.
When a court screws up, don't skip the resulting crisis.
Chemerinsky already thinks California is an independent state since he quotes "international law" as an argument?
He does not think California should be subject to that pesky old U.S. Constitution of 1787?
There’s no such thing as international law.
Does California have lots of leverage against Nevada? Can’t Nevada turn off the taps to Southern California?
Let’s see California win that 30 day prop bet.
I propose the following:
- California should secede
- The USA should - in defense of NV - unleash that cool alien tech at Area 51 (NV) on CA
- CA loses
- Their leftist rantings about socialist redistribution and sanctuary are followed by a "redistribution" of CA wealth to their neighbors as well as refunds to the Federal treasury
- ???
- Profit. Obviously.
Let's let California leave. Give it a push if we need to. Then commission a study to see what happens when a state leaves the union. It will be really good data to have and well worth the risk to California. Kind of like getting death row inmates to participate in drug trials. Why not? We're going to kill them anyway.
There’s no such thing as international law.
There is and there isn't. It is more international conventions and exists to the extent that the "major powers" think it convenient to enforce these "conventions" rather than risk going to war.
Why not sell California to the Israelis?
We could pay down the national debt and they could move out of the middle east, which would also save us money in the long run. Nevada would probably have a better neighbor than they have now. And there'd be a big beautiful wall on that part of the southern border.
Well, there is some precedent for a war between States.
Loved Justice Sotomayor’s comment quoted in SCOTUSBLOG.
Israelis are no more willing to trade Israel for California, than they were for Kenya, back (a century ago?) when that was suggested.
We'd still need a wall on the Nevada-California border to keep all those California Democrats from sneaking out of New Israel into the US.
I have long argued that we need a WALL along the CAL-NEV border. Walls work. Look at the Great Wall of China - it's still there after more than 2,000 years. Only one Mexican breached the Wall in that time, Pancho Villa Chang, a Mexican-Mongolian invader. As of late, he's been living in Las Vegas. That is why we need a wall along the Nevada border.
ITA. Build a wall between NV and Cali.
"Chemerinsky already thinks California is an independent state since he quotes "international law" as an argument? He does not think California should be subject to that pesky old U.S. Constitution of 1787?"
You're missing the point (which is admittedly hard to see). California would like the Court to say that it has an immunity that's in the Constitution, even though it isn't written in the Constitution. Chemerinsky, arguing on the other side, says there is not constitutional immunity. One reason he cites is, of course, that there's nothing explicitly in the Constitution that says so. He also says it's not part of the original understanding. But to those who would nevertheless "find" this sovereign immunity in the Constitution, he says you shouldn't want to find it because it's not really needed. There is this other principle, comity, that can avoid the problems you might think you need to solve by looking for things in the Constitution. Comity is part of the law that exists before and beyond written law — the law of nations. So California can rely on that. He says that makes sense because before the Constitution, the states were like foreign states to each other, so that law was there, and, he says, it didn't end. It survived the Constitution. There's nothing in that argument that purports to say California isn't subject to the U.S. Constitution. The argument is that there is no constitutional law here, but there is other law that exists, serves the function of the law the other side is pushing you to "find" in the Constitution, and that law isn't unconstitutional or superseded by any other law.
The principle, if comity it is, must mean that other states are free to ignore it. After all, comity does not require California to accept another state's law license for practice in California. The Good Faith and Credit Clause requires same sex marriages be accepted, but not law licenses. Therefore, comity must allow discretion.
Is that correct, Althouse?
First, I learned a new word - "hale/d". At first, I thought it was a typo of "hauled", but no, it is indeed a word.
How will Nevada enforce its court's ruling in this case? Sure, other states can definitely be haled into another state's court system, but without enforce of the rulings, isn't it just pointless in the end?
Thanks Ann for the clarification.
Keep the background in mind. Hyatt had some patents whose claims read on basic microcomputer processor design. He signed licensing deals with some Japanese companies, then seeing the state income tax that he would pay if he stayed in CA, moved to Las Vegas, because NV doesn't have a state income tax. He did that the year (I think that it was late in the year, but still...) before he got any money. If he had been an accrual basis taxpayer, CA might have had a claim of n those taxes. But individuals are cash basis taxpayers, which means that CA had no legal claim to taxes on that income because it was received in a year when he was a NV resident. But tens of millions of dollars were at stake, so,nit they could prove that he really hadn't moved to NV before the end of the year (they never could), he would owe that money. So they sent investigators to Las Vegas, who hounded him for much of a decade, trying to prove this.
So, because of the outrageous behavior by CA, Hyatt eventually sued them in NV court. CA said "you can't sue us because we have sovereign immunity - it's in our constitution". The NV supreme court said "So What?". "We are also a sovereign, so are not bound by your constitution". Keep in mind that we are talking outrageous behavior for which they should be liable, but don't want to be. Also keep in mind that the outrageous conduct occurred in NV to a NV resident (which is why NV, not CA, courts had jurisdiction and NV, not CA, law applied). To summarize, CA state agents came into NV on official business to illegally harass a NV resident for no legal reason. On a previous trip up, the US Supreme Court agreed with NV - CA doesn't have sovereign immunity for actions taken by its agents under its control in another state, based on its own (CA) constitution. So, now it is back in the Supreme Court so that CA can make another argument about why they shouldn't be liable for actions by their agents in another state against a resident of that other state. As I think I understand it, the argument is that NV is immune to suit by NV residents in NV, so comity should require that CA also be immune to suit. (Since they already lost the argument that NV should respect CA's state constitutional sovereign immunity).
As a disclaimer, I should add that I am friends with a guy who is prosecuting some of Hyatt!s patent applications.
I guess my main question is this- why didn't Hyatt sue California in the federal court system?
Trumpit: Well played.
This is a classic case of hard facts making hard law. Hyatt is no angel. Many don't think that he actually invented the technology for which he is getting licensing fees. Hundreds of millions of dollars so far. He was just able, with a huge amount of persistence to get patent claims that read on very valuable technology. He invented the technology embodied in his patents while a CA resident. And was a CA resident when he went to Japan and signed a very lucrative licensing agreement with some Japanese companies. But for whatever reason, he was not a CA resident in a year in which he received a penny of those Japanese licensing fees. He had moved to NV late in the year before the licensing fees were going to start flowing to him. I should also add that he is apparently extraordinarily hard and demanding to work with professionally.
That said, I sure don't want CA or NY, or any other state I don't live in coming around, snooping in my garbage, tailing me, etc, just because it would be quasi legal for them to do so in their own state. It could be (and assuredly has been) argued that CA submitted itself to NV jurisdiction by essentially conducting business in NV. CA repeatedly sent CA employees, under CA supervision, into NV to commit torts against a NV resident. If CA were a corporation chartered in any other state, this would be far more than sufficient for grounds for NV jurisdiction.
To some extent we need states to treat each other as they would treat the other states. And much of our economy revolves around states respecting each other's laws. And, who knows, but maybe next time NV will be hauled into CA court for something done by it in CA. For example, if I remember correctly, CO was sued by OK (I think) for pot that an OK resident bought legally in CO, but was found on the OK resident in OK, where it is still illegal. How far does this go?
@Yancy - Not sure why Hyatt sued CA in NV court, and not federal court. He might have, and had it dismissed. Would almost have to be under Diversity jurisdiction, and states may be exempt. Probably need someone with a lot more litigation experience for a good answer there. If they had been in federal court, then CA might have had a better chance at arguing sovereign immunity, CA law applied, etc. as was, the NV courts likely saw themselves protecting a NV resident from tortuous actions that occurred in NV. The nexus was obviously in NV, and if CA were a private actor, jurisdiction and choice of law would clearly be in NV. Maybe tge point is that federal courts involving states probably have to take into account that state's law. NV doesn't. Or hasn't had to so far - this is another attempt to force them to.
The bottom line is that CA is a tax fascist state.
Post a Comment