🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7tthif$q03$1@ultra.sonic.net>,
David Hatunen <hatunen@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:

>I'e already mentioned that none of the accounts I read were clear
>on whether it was a state or federal question. I had assumed it was
>an interstate commerce thing. If the case is based on purely state
>grounds then, no, it will not go to the federal courts. But I
>already implied that.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about how courts work.  Whether
the lower federal courts (district and circuit courts) hear a case depends on
where it was first brought, not whether the case arises under federal or state
law.  This case involves both a federal and a state issue.  As such, it could
have been brought in federal court if the polaintiffs had wanted to.  They
chose a state court instead.  Therefore, it can't be appealed to any federal
court other than the U.S. Supreme Court - and of course that review would be
limited to the federal question.

>As to what the Supremes will or won't grant certiorari, the smart
>money doesn't bet at all.

Why not?  The odds are much better there than anywhere else.  The SC only hears
a tiny fraction of the cases brought to its attention.

>OK. is it or is it not the federal constitution that's involved
>here? You mention above about the 'state constitutional challenge".

That is because the court ruled that the tax violated BOTH constitutions. The
California SC can uphold this ruling as to both, reverse it as to both, or
reverse as to one while upholding as to the other.  After that, the U.S. 
Supreme Court may review the decision as to the federal constitution only.  If
the CA Supreme Court holds that the tax violates the CA constitution (as the
Court of Appeal did), the tax is unconstitutional, period, and the U.S.
Supreme Court won't even look into the federal question since it would be moot.

[This is assuming, of course, that the court doesn't find a way to reform the
tax to make it comply with the California constitution.  If it does, the tax's
viability under the federal constitution will not be moot, and the U.S. Supreme
Court may review it after all."]

>And they didn't. Whether a "fee" is an import duty or a legitimate
>exercise of the police powers isn't as simple as you make it.
>Calling it an "import duty" is pretty sure to make your law look
>bad, though.

I wouldn't call it an import duty if its application weren't so state-
specific.  I agree that there aare cases where it's hard to tell which is
which; I just don't happen to think this is one of those cases.


>>>Only if the grounds was the state constitution. Was it?
>>Yes, it was.
>
>I didn't say it had to be. Where did you get the idea I did say so?

That word "only" has a rather exclusive connotation.

>But appeal to a federal court would require a federal issue. If the
>CalSupremes say yea or nay to a state issue, it stays a state
>issue.

That is true of the U.S. Supreme Court, but not of the other federal courts,
which rule on matters of state law all the time (but which cannot hear any
appeals from a state court ruling).  My only point here is that if
the tax violates the California constitution, it is immaterial whether or not
it violates the Commerce Clause, and will therefore not be reviewed.

It also strikes me as a bit counterintuitive that you expect a federal court
to hold more broadly for "states' rights" than the state courts have.  Not that
that makes it impossible, of course.