*1 merely because it case, they at- 2 relief entitled voting. In this § iments to than percentage significant portion out lower that a turns tempted prove Further, high incidence population was unavailable whites to vote. Hispanic of election, because in the District is Hispanic registration date of of to vote on the However, Hispanic the district voters migrant persuasive work. evidence that of evidence, because participation not credit that in the court did deterred from are not (1) reliably proved presented that none was effects of political process because at migrant population of the discrimination, unemploy- the extent including prior percentage trial;26 (2) what time of ment, illiteracy, low income. registered voters. migrant workers are court’s ultimate Accordingly, district inadequa- prove the failed to Plaintiffs also Hispanic vot- finding that the cause to allow voting procedures cy of absentee success is failure to ers’ lack electoral the District migrant workers absent opportunity, advantage political take findings that court’s to vote. district clearly is not rather than a violation § majority was registered voter Hispanic erroneous.28 clearly erroneous. illusory are con- example, plaintiffs could As another III. that, despite registered ceivably prove reasons, judgment foregoing For the low at elections majority, turnout voter district court is prior official discrimina- the result of was Barnes, F.Supp. E.g., tion. Graves v. AFFIRMED. partic- (“the that the voter reason at 733 is so ipation among the Mexican-Americans es- voting patterns that their
low is precisely the sort under same
tablished
discriminatory State actions we condemna-
already found both relevant and Blacks”
tory regard to the Dallas original)).
(emphasis in Plaintiffs would but, as proof; burden of face a difficult LTD., APARTMENTS, APACHE BEND Westwego this court noted Citizens al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, et (Westwe- City Westwego Better Gov’t Cir.1989), (5th I), F.2d go America, Acting UNITED STATES recognized and the courts have “Congress Through INTERNAL REVENUE by minorities ‘political participation SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee. minority depressed to be where tends prior dis- effects of group members suffer No. 91-1083. (Quoting Gingles, 478 crimination’”. Appeals, Court of United States 2776). Here, plaintiffs at Fifth Circuit. accuracy disputed evidence introduced elections, that, Hispanic some Board 25, 1992. June percentage roughly seven turnout However, Anglos.27 that of points below linking directly no evidence offered past turnout with official discrimi-
this low is not Obviously, protected
nation. affirm, noted, do not reach the law- we 1976 28.Because relied 26. As migrant popu- study projected disqualification the District yer stable issue raised GOMA 1981-86, the trial was (even assuming, light until whereas lations to take a of its failure so). in 1990. conducted cross-appeal, that we could do noted, court found the statis- the district 27. As disclosed because of errors after tics unreliable appellees' analysis of the data. *2 protection component
Clause and Process Clause the United the Due argued They States Constitution. *3 tax- Congress favoritism to those exhibited strong lobbies, congressional payers with against tax- discriminated and thus Barbolla, Worth, Tex., for Patrick A. Ft. plaintiffs, “were not fortu- payers, like that plaintiffs-appellants. Congress.” to have an ear nate Allen, Gary R. McLaughlin, E. Teresa 8,389-90 (daily Sept. Cong.Rec. H ed. Chief, Chief, Rothenberg, Asst. Gilbert S. 1986)(statement Rep. Kolbe). Plaintiffs Div., Justice, Sec., Dept, of Tax Appellate relief, declaratory re- sought injunctive D.C., Washington, defendants-appel- questing enjoin the enforce- that the court lees. rules so that no of the transition ment from them.
taxpayer could benefit published opinion, the district court In a facts, parsed the articulated the relevant Act, history the Tax Reform GOLDBERG, JOLLY, and Before precedents germane to the the is studied WIENER, Judges. Circuit raised, legal the basis sues detailed GOLDBERG, Judge: Circuit (N.D.Tex. F.Supp. its decision. end, 1988). it that al In the concluded impact dampen the of the In an effort to standing though plaintiffs had these changes brought by the Tax radical about claims, although the court raise their 1986, Congress provided Act Reform jurisdiction to award the re otherwise had exemptions the new taxpayers certain relief, rules of the quested the transition instances, Congress many tax laws. In of 1986 not constitu Tax Reform Act designed exemptions, known as these tionally infirm.1 rules,” to favor one “transition by taxpayers. The method very few which simplified by appeal on Our task that taxpayers selected those the district court.2 exemplary efforts of of the transition enjoy would the benefit steps all of its We need not retrace subject of this lawsuit. rules Rather, limit our judgment. affirm we its first, whether issues: discussion two taxpayers Plaintiffs are that were standing enjoin plaintiffs have granted any relief under the transition these rules, and sec they application of the transition Claiming similarly sit- rules. ond, transition rules violate tran- whether the to those to whom the uated equal protection component of the Due they brought apply, sition rules do respects, we constitutionality In all other challenge the of Process Clause. lawsuit to reasoning.3 Uniformity agree court’s with the district rules under the transition ruling agree analysis district initially of the 3. We 1. The reserved court 1294-95, court, rejecting F.Supp. at in order to allow the claim government’s this suit is barred parties contention that on whether there was to submit evidence Declaratory Anti-Injunction by Act and the classification. a rational basis for order, Judgment plaintiffs seek to have unpublished Act insofar as F.Supp. at 1298. In an nullify rules. See Zele granted summary judgment court the transition in favor of the nak, court & 614-15 n. finding nothing supra note 44 Tax L.Rev. at government, evidence as to do serious doubts undermining 251. We entertain the rationali- tendered to the court jurisdiction have the court would ty whether of the classification. enjoin Act the Tax Reform the enforcement whole, plaintiffs requested scholarly by as a work of of 1986 2. We are also assisted Zelenak, complaint. 615 n. Our See id. at law review Lawrence whose Professor however, us, subject need not detain because has our concern on the facilitated article jurisdic analysis having the court determined and contributed to our research enjoin of the transition tion to rules, the enforcement Lawrence Are Shot issues. See Rifle constitutionality Legislation must address their Other Ad Hoc Transition Rules and Angeles Lyons, Constitutional?, any City Los L.Rev. event. 44 Tax Cf. I. STANDING der the transition rules. Viewed light, it appear plaintiffs have concluded that district court no standing because sought the relief challenge would not redress the economic injury suf- constitutionality of the transition rules. essence, fered. litigating Under the district court what described as liability the tax parties of third tax- general standing principles, —the the court rea payers favored the transition rules. injury, soned that suffered an Act, to the traceable Tax Reform which fact, But in the injury alleged plain- court could prohibiting redress the en tiffs is exclusively an economic one. forcement transition rules. 702 Rather, plaintiffs contend the disparity *4 F.Supp. 1291. in treatment is itself judicially cognizable injury, government attributable to by the standing question is complicated in virtue of its enforcement of the transition the of sought the nature relief rules, the which federal court can redress. by plaintiffs. They do not ask for the The court can injury, redress this plain- in the benefit of transition rules that favor view, tiffs’ by making either the transition Rather, only taxpayers. the select they applicable (insofar rules plaintiffs to as equality seek in through treatment the nul- they situated), similarly byor eliminat- is, lification of the transition rules. That ing the altogether transition rules so that they merely wish enjoin to have the court gets no one a tax break. com- their government the providing from the tax plaint, indicated, as plaintiffs we have presently breaks accorded the select tax- pursued latter They the course. seek the payers through the transition so that rules satisfaction knowing of that the Re- Tax all taxpayers Thus, will be treated alike. form any Act treats no one better than expect any do not to tangi- obtain them: If going are not get to the ble benefit or economic relief break, similarly tax then no lawsuit, other situated only the they elimination of what one, taxpayer should receive perceive either. discriminatory to be treatment. We believe the nullification requested relief raises concerns abrogate transition rules so as tax to redressibility. about It is well settled that breaks accorded the select few under the plaintiff standing to bring a claim in provide appropriate transition rules would only federal court if he can show an actual injuries alleged redress by plain- for the injury, threatened attributable respect pro- plaintiffs’ equal tiffs. With defendant, which the court can redress. claim, Mathews, tection Heckler v. Mathews, 728, 104 Heckler v. S.Ct. (1984), 79 L.Ed.2d If L.Ed.2d right case, point. In that the Su- injury view by plaintiffs suffered in preme nondependent held male Court this case liability as increased tax at bring equal retirees laws, had an tendant to the new then one challenge might protection favoring to a law non- argue convincingly nullifying dependent retirees, though in female even way transition rules will redress plaintiffs’ injury, they will redress available to them would continue to abrogation bear liability nondependent the increased tax in of benefits to the even Indeed, severability absence of the transition female A in rules. retirees: clause only impact provided nullification would be to the statute if the statute impose liability upon unconstitutional, that same tax those were declared favor- taxpayers enjoying favorable treatment un- able treatment accorded to female retirees (1983) rejection We also concur the district court’s (question jurisdiction whether a court has plaintiffs’ challenge tran- constitutional to the form award one of relief to be determined Uniformity sition rules under the Clause independently jurisdic- whether court has Constitution, I, F.Supp. § Art. clause relief);
tion
some
to award
other form of
Socie-
at 1295-96 & n. 11.
Herman,
ty
Separationists v.
1561
opinion,
Here,
violates
plaintiffs
classification scheme
allege that
they have
been
denied
breaks afforded to
if the
other
even
classifications
similarly situated taxpayers by the transi-
quasi-sus-
along suspect
are not
or
drawn
tion rules.
Wright,
Contrast Allen v.
lines;
pect
any
sort that
classifications
U.S.
3326-27,
legitimate
rationally
are not
related to a
(1984) (no
L.Ed.2d 556
standing because
governmental
interest
unconstitutional.
plaintiffs themselves
had
been denied
Equal protection is not concerned exclu- equal treatment). They say that there is
sively
stigmas.6
with archaic
When a no rational
denying
basis for
them the tax
plaintiff alleges
he
“person-
has been
agree
breaks. Were we to
equal treatment,” Mathews,
ally denied
merits,
on the
we
injury
could redress that
added)
(emphasis
S.Ct.
he
by extending
either
to them the
—that
transitional
particular
has
denied a
been
benefit accord-
relief accorded to the
select
by nullifying the transition rules altogeth-
similarly
ed to others who are
situated —he
could,
course,
er. Under either
achieve
alleged
equal protection injury,
re-
the “mandate of
treatment.” Math-
gardless
stigma
of the nature of the
ews,
(emphasis
origi-
to the
attaches
disfavored class. See Alle-
nal).
gheny Pittsburgh
County
Coal Co. v.
persuaded,
We are
also
similar rea-
Comm’n,
sons,
that these
(1989) (holding
L.Ed.2d 688
that formula
bring
challenge
to the
un-
classification
property
used for
was unconsti-
valuation
Uniformity
der the
Clause
the Constitu-
comparable prop-
because
tutional
it valued
being
“If
unequally
tion:
treated
is itself
*6
differently);
City
erties
also
New
see
of
sufficient
to
injury
equal protec-
establish
Dukes,
297,
96
Orleans
427 U.S.
S.Ct.
tion
then
standing,'
being taxed nonuni-
2513,
(1976) (entertaining
L.Ed.2d
49
511
formly
injury
should
itself sufficient
to
rejecting equal
challenge
but
to
uniformity
standing.”
establish
clause
city
“grandfa-
ordinance which contained a
Zelenak,
2,
supra note
44 Tax L.Rev. at
clause”);
ther
United States R.R. Retire-
(1989).7
620
Fritz,
166,
ment Bd. v.
449 U.S.
101 S.Ct.
all,
plaintiffs
In
we conclude that
453,
(1980)(entertaining
L.Ed.2d
66
368
but
standing
press
to
their constitutional
equal
rejecting
protection challenge to stat-
equal protection compo-
claims under the
utory
provided
scheme which
select em- nent of the Due Process Clause and under
ployees
benefits).
with
Uniformity
windfall
Clause of
the Constitution.8
Interestingly,
challenge
analysis, meaningful only
6.
Mathews involved a
final
as
to
inasmuch
statutory
favoring nondependent
scheme
fe-
they
rights
persons
create
in
those States.
within
brought by
male retirees. The
lawsuit
non-
uniformity
meaning only
tax
clause has
retirees,
dependent
hardly
suffering
male
a class
guarantee
persons
that
will not be discriminated
stigma
archaic
that
them
would make
against
they hap-
where
taxation because of
they
worthy participants
feel that
were "less
2,
pen
supra
to
44
be located.”
note
.
Orr,
political community.”
See also Orr
Tax
L.Rev. at
268,
1102, 1111-1114,
440 U.S.
59
(1979) (striking
L.Ed.2d
down state statute
"tax
8. The district court held that
had
imposition
alimony
that authorized the
of
obli-
payer standing”
bring
uniformity
their
clause
husbands,
wives).
gations on
but not
challenge.
F.Supp.
(applying the
at 1292
argu-
7. Professor Zelenak notes that there is
Cohen,
83,
two-prong
test
Flast v.
extending
against
ment
the rationale of Math-
(1968) (taxpayer
But their raw reasons court, political power shall to obtain transition rules for trict as we elaborate claim, we do constituents. Id. Even in this respect favored court, government acknowledges scheme constitu- not find the classification definitely “political played a considerations tionally infirm. significant process role the selection ... the focus the debate was on sub- [and] EQUAL II. PROTECTION opposed objective jective factors [as passage As debated 135) (R. factors].” quite Tax Reform Act of it became Plaintiffs contend that no rational basis package legislation clear Congress’ classification as be- exists exemp- necessarily transition rules: include taxpayers tween those afforded relief un- designed tions from new tax laws der rules and those the transition who taxpayers those that had relied on assist They not. maintain that for the fact but previous making significant tax laws right people did not have “the part, investment decisions. For the most speaking Congress, 132 for [them]” provisions tax were not avail- these ad hoc S13,874 26, 1986) Cong.Rec. (daily Sept. ed. taxpayers, only all to those on able to but (statement Metzenbaum), they of Sen. particular Con- behalf of whom members of similarly taxpayers those situated to gress requested exemptions. had presently enjoy tax accorded breaks Congress appeased re- Members view, plaintiffs' transition rules. questing by according them constituents providing benefits classification— relief, yet threatening transitional avoided in Con- those with connections by evading viability package the tax exploit gress political savvy and the the extension of transitional relief across relationships to a violation —amounts general A the board. transition rule protection. application, opposed to these “rifle shot” rules, transition would have been far more A. revenue,
costly in emi- terms albeit *7 nently fairer. adjudge plain In to properly order claim, doling the of out tax tiffs’ we first establish relevant
This method breaks eyebrows legal more a in Con- When a fundamental raised than few framework. stake, gress. right ex- at Several members of is or the classification at pressed similarly inherently suspect tax- is concern that situated issue —classification race, origin, 702 alien- payers being equally. were not treated based on national and Cong.Rec. age legislation at 132 un F.Supp. (quoting 1287-89 courts evaluate the —the S8,128 23, 1986) (statement (daily exacting strict ed. June der the most standard: Levin); S13,810 (daily scrutiny. Rapides of id. at ed. Parish Sen. Town Ball of (5th 26, 1986); Cong.Rec. H8,389-90 Jury, 1049, Cir. Sept. 132 Police 746 F.2d 1059 25, 1986)(statement 1984). (daily Rep. “will almost Sept. ed. Such classification Kolbe); S7,654 Cong.Rec. (daily legitimate governmental 132 ed. never be based on 17, 1986) (statement reasons,” review, judicial June of Sen. Metzen- and survive 464, 478, 752, 761-62, Constitution, provision other than the U.S. 102 S.Ct. added), Clause, (1982) allege (emphasis operates 700 which as a limi- and Establishment taxing “challenged specific spending power as constitu- and so enactment exceeds tation Zelenak, standing. upon taxing plaintiffs taxpayer with tional limitations the exercise vest 2, (“It (that prohibited spending power" supra is note L.Rev. 624 is unlike- the tax 44 Tax at Constitution, Uniformity ly Supreme recognize ever Clause of the Court will Congress' standing any taxing power). taxpayer part Id. 454 in suits based on limitation on 479, added). (emphasis at 762 other than the Establishment U.S. at 102 S.Ct. Constitution 2, Clause.”). supra note Tax L.Rev. at these Contra 44 Because we conclude (“The difficulty, 623 n. in a case stand- & 278 like under traditional decide, Bend, express Apache identifying spending ing principles, nec- not need on, standing.”). opinion essary support taxpayer We note whether these Supreme yet taxpayer standing under Flast. that the Court has not identified a otherwise have
1563
compelling governmental
Ball,
further a
“must
interest.” Town
746 F.2d
mental]
sure,
Supreme
alterna-
1058. To
interest which cannot be served
Court
recently applied the
suspect
tive
rational relation
means less burdensome to
test
case,
one, involving
like
equal
an
right
fundamental
or interest.”
class or
protection challenge to
omitted).
a tax scheme.
(footnotes
Thus,
See
Id.
under strict
Allegheny Pittsburgh
County
Coal Co. v.
scrutiny,
legislative classifications must
Comm’n,
336,
governmental
compelling
serve a
interest
(1989).
L.Ed.2d 688
The Court reiterated
narrowly
and be
tailored to the achieve-
principle
long
so
as “the selection
ment of that interest.
or
capricious
classification
neither
nor
legislative
The courts examine
clas
arbitrary,
upon
and rests
some reasonable
involving “suspect”
sifications not
classes
consideration
policy,
of difference or
there
involving
“giv[ing]
but
other classifications
is no
denial of
of the law.”
recurring
rise to
constitutional difficul
(quoting
Id.
at
458.
claimed to
test;
pass
regu
rational
similarly situated
relation
some
employees
to those
who continued to receive the
lations fail even this lenient examination.
windfall
agreed
dual benefits.
district court
has
Court
invalidated
classifica
held
differentiation
equal protection grounds
tions
when it
solely
employee
based
on whether an
was
absolutely
basis
found
reasonable
See,
active
the railroad business
e.g., Allegheny
for the classifications.
“rationally
congressional
related to the
Comm’n,
Pittsburgh
County
Coal Co.
insuring
purposes
solvency
336, 109
633, 102
S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d
system
protecting
retirement
railroad
(formula
(1989)
property valuation
Id. vested benefits.”
resulting
most
sale
in rela
based on
recent
overvaluation,
higher
tive
thus
tax as
sessment,
comparable
properties);
reversed,
The Supreme
finding
Court
Vermont, Williams v.
constitutionally
classification scheme
ac-
(1985) (high
ceptable.
explained
“Congress
It
purchase
automo
er tax on
of out-of-state
properly
persons
could
conclude that
Met
residency);
biles
on out-of-state
based
actually acquired statutory
had
entitlement
Ward,
ropolitan
Ins. v.
employed
to windfall
benefits while still
Life
*10
1676,
(1985) (lower
105
ing
which
ordinance
retarded);
Court wrote:
Zobel v.
mentally
for
2309, 72
55,
Williams,
102 S.Ct.
in-state and out-
“[EJqual
U.S.
treatment for
(state
(1982)
dividend distribu
similarly situated is
L.Ed.2d 672
of-state
residents
favoring established
a
use
plan
precedent
tion
condition
valid
residents);
Dept.
imported
States
goods
new
United
from out
over
tax on
528,
Moreno,
413 U.S.
may
v.
not treat
those
Agriculture
A State
state.”
(denial
(1973)
2821,
unequally solely
37 L.Ed.2d
on the
S.Ct.
its borders
within
containing a
to households
stamps
their
residences or
food
different
basis
non-relative).
incorporation.
States
(quoting
2471-72
Halliburton
105 S.Ct.
contend that Williams
Plaintiffs
70,
64,
Reily,
Oil Well Co.
striking
support for
Ward,
lend
supra,
1201, 1204,
(1963)).
S.Ct.
Williams,
rules.
the transition
down
(dura
Zobel,
at 2314-15
102 S.Ct.
See also
a state law
struck down
the Court
rationally
related to
residency
tion of
taxes
of state sales
exempted
payment
interest).
state's
bought cars out-of-
residents who
state
moving
apposite,
on
state,
imposed
Allegheny
the tax
is the most
most
but
bought
recent,
cars out-of-
invalidated
who had
case wherein the Court
the state
into
The Court
Court reasoned:
a
classification scheme.
state. The
property
on real
held that assessments
purchase
time of
a
residence
price
acquisition
vio-
on most recent
based
on
to distin-
wholly arbitrary basis which
equal protection. The court reasoned
lated
regis-
among present Vermont
guish
necessarily
acquisition price did not
trants____
the statute
purposes
The
recently
value:
correlate with the market
served,
identically
and with
higher
much
property would be valued
sold
burden, by taxing each. The
identical
had
been
property that
than identical
no rela-
them bears
distinction between
long
time. The Court concluded
sold
statutory purpose.
to the
tion
truly arbitrary and
distinction
at 2472.
105 S.Ct.
capricious:
Ward, another
Because Williams
one's allocable share of
fairness of
classifications,
striking
in-
down tax
can
property tax
the total
burden
residency,
on
discrimination based
volved
by comparison
meaningfully evaluated
precedential value with
they provide limited
similarly situ-
share of
others
The
other classifications.
respect
holdings.
property
relative to
ated
the classifi-
inclination to invalidate
Court’s
compara-
undervaluation
The relative
perhaps
and Ward
cations Williams
County over
property Webster
ble
distaste for
explained by
Court’s
best
petitioner
denies
time therefore
Ward,
“parochial discrimination.”
of the law.
Court wrote in
at 1681. As the
emphasized
Court
at 639. The
Ward:
‘applies
Equal Protection Clause
that “[t]he
Equal Protection Clause forbids
bears un-
only to taxation which
fact
of its own
favor
to discriminate
State
of the same
persons
property
equally
”
burdening
resi-
solely by
“the
residents
(quoting
Charleston
class.’
Id. at
of our fed-
of other state members
dents
Alderson, 324
Loan Ass’n
Fed. Sav. &
validity
of the view
eration.”
...
89 L.Ed.
constitutionally
may not
fa-
State
cases)). But
(1945)(collecting
even Al-
foreign
by taxing
its
vor
own residents
us be-
of limited assistance to
legheny is
higher
solely be-
corporations at a
rate
classifications
it did not
involve
cause
residence is confirmed
cause of their
“line-
product
which were a
holding.
so
long line of this Court’s cases
Fritz, 449 U.S. at
drawing.” Compare
Rather, it
involved
Ohio,
C.
appropriate governmental purpose, the
legal
apply
principles
We now
these
of
objective
providing
exemp-
selective
challenge
few,
only
to the constitutional
levied in
tions to
upon
a
based
their
politicians,
to
access to
illegitimate
determine whether the transition
is an
prohibited objective
plaintiffs’
rules can
...
withstand
attack. Un
There can
test,
legitimate
never be a
public purpose
der
rational basis
we must first
served
arbitrary
challenged legislation
selection of
consider whether the
general
favored few from the
applicabili-
legitimate government
purpose.
If
of
ty
taxing
so,
statute.
we consider
challenged
whether the
promotes
legislative pur
classification
Plaintiffs would have us define the “fa-
Ball,
pose. Town
be 26, 1986)(statement S13,810 Sept. (daily ed. enue collections. Levin), little, any, if there was of Sen. course, preserva- “a concern for the Of taxpayer would receive tran- that a chance hardly can of resources alone tion Senator asked: relief. As one sitional allocating justify classification used could not come to about those who “[W]hat Doe, Plyler resources.” U.S. those Washington case? and make their What lobby- could hire the about those who (1982). But to made: choices had be appeal? Where present ists to tough And far we can tell choices. as fairness to them?” Id. Congress history, made from recognize politics played that we While based on the merits of the their decisions determining the transition part in to whom for relief made to applications transitional apply, we nevertheless believe rules would the Finance Committee. We realize that, great accord- deference view taxpayers political those connections legislation, tax Supreme Court to ed had better access to the Committee than contain no the classifications constitutional Nevertheless, nothing suggests others. Congress sought give malady. to transi- Congress aimed to exclude others taxpayers peti- to tional relief those Congress designed the classifications demonstrated, for relief and most tioned purpose with such a in mind: substantially they convincingly, that relied impact on the If the adverse disfavored making major the old tax laws invest- apparent legisla- class is an aim of the every application for ment decisions. Not ture, impartiality suspect. its however, granted, transitional relief was If, however, may impact rea- the adverse notwithstanding. Congres-
political clout
acceptable
sonably be viewed as an
cost
examined more than
sional staff members
impartial
achieving
larger goal,
requests
one thousand
for rifle shot transi-
rationally
lawmaker could
decide that
recommending the inclu-
tion relief before
cost should
incurred.
As
sion of several hundred.
the Senate
explained:
Committee
Finance
Chairman
Fritz,
at 462
go through
I
down
all
did not sit
and
(Stevens,
concurring).
J.
one,
1,000-plus requests
one
nor did I
Moreover,
appears
it
that Plaintiffs nev-
1,000
try
public hearing
hold the
on all
Tax
sought
er
transitional relief from the
give
if I
the wit-
them. Even
could
places
espe-
in an
Reform Act. That
them
each,
nesses 10 minutes
there would be
position
challenge the rifle
cially difficult
100,000
10,000 witnesses,
minutes.
and
for,
They
rules.
not ask
shot
did
say
staff,
we did is to
to the
So what
receive,
congressional
therefore did
“Here are the rules which transitions
manna:
Try
violating
to avoid
to be selected.
Congress
expected
cannot be
to search
By
large they
rules.”
taxpayers
out on its own those
whose
try
asked them to
successful. We
give
strong
peculiar
them
circumstances
pass upon
merits of the rest.
equitable arguments
special
relief
S13,904
Cong.Rec.
(daily
Sept.
ed.
rather,
general
provisions;
such
1986) (statement
Packwood);
of Sen.
see
taxpayers
Congress.
Thus
must come
S13,786
Cong.Rec.
(daily ed.
also id.
providing special
taxpayer,
rule for one
1986)
could,
(“[A]s honestly we
Sept.
other,
rationally
for the
related
but not
tried
be fair
the transitions and we
purpose
providing
legitimate
to the
did not
tried to make sure
violate
deserving
ex-
taxpayers,
relief for
to the
bill.”). Congress
the basic tenets of the
done
the need
tent that can be
without
grant every request for transi-
could not
initiate
hunt for those
relief, for that would have threat-
tional
Act,
taxpayers____
legislature should be
which, by
ened the success of
[A]
special
provide
able to
relief for those
design
Congress,
the President
found,
neutral,
deserving
it
raising
neither
nor
with-
to be revenue
*13
providing
out
relief for others it has not
say
This is not to
that
we
undis-
found.
turbed
methodology employed by
Congress
dispensation
in its
of transitional
supra note
44 Tax L.Rev. at
relief.
We
be less than candid if we
575-76.
did not confess that we are somewhat trou-
We hold that the
made by
classifications
bled,
astonished,
if
political
not
that
connec-
arbitrary.
were not
It accorded
tions played
large
such a
role
the cre-
deserving
transitional relief to those
tax-
ation of this ad
tax legislation.
hoc
But as
payers
applied
for such relief and es-
judiciary,
members of the
“may
sit
convincingly
tablished most
that they relied
a superlegislature
judge
to
the wisdom
substantially on the old
in making
tax laws
or desirability
legislative policy
determi-
major investment decisions.
nations made in areas that neither affect
rights
proceed
fundamental
nor
along sus-
III. CONCLUSION
pect
Dukes,
lines.”
whether applied laws and rules are to be dissenting specially concurring in the retroactively merely prospectively. result:1 Prisoners on inequali- death row tell of the they perceive ty judicial from those deci- Despite majority’s ef- resourceful dispenses sions. The executive branch standing forts to find to assert a claim for preferential eyes treatment in a citi- equal protection case, I in this am com- charged zen govern- with crime pelled respectfully when to ma- dissent prosecute ment fails to another al- jority’s citizen conclusion that the —who legedly guilty of the same crime. claim injury no economic for themselves only deny but seek economic benefits all, government, falling our short of standing bring others—have this case. for, utopia might hope that we can equality majority strive classifications. But it holds that expect per- pursue unrealistic for us to their claims under equality. equal protection component fect of the Due majori- I in the result tiffs' concur reached claim fails on the merits. opinion, ty's plain- which determines gone to this extreme No court has ever Amendment. of the Fifth Clause
Process requires pioneers. now majority claim that the such a Standing to assert a member harmed as plaintiff be the limits of the Failing recognize given can injured of an case, cites v. Math- majority Heckler I fail see cognizable definition. lawfully ews, *14 a “class” rules created that the transition (1984). Although sup- the case L.Ed.2d equal protection applied the term is as economic benefit is ports the view that’lost the A traditional laws. injury, an required in order to suffer by some characteristic of defined class is may unequal con- treatment alone disfavored, race, such as state persons the discriminatory injury, an the stitute such residence, holding or even age, legitimacy, in by Brennan effect described Justice See, e.g., property. later-acquired is not the character of discrimina- Mathews Vermont, 14, 105 v. Williams in by plaintiffs our case. described the tion (1985). In each 86 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. effect, i.e., injury, discriminatory the The case, by is defined plaintiff class such protec- gives equal rise to claim -form the class that characteristics tion is discrimination that injury, such the basis of discrimination stereotypic by ‘archaic and perpetuating prevented persons are illegitimate who as by stigmatizing or members notions’ qualified or receiving an inheritance ‘innately inferi- group disfavored persons prevented from vot- black worthy partici- therefore as less or’ and ing. political community, in can pants in ma- as defined plaintiff The class injuries to serious noneconomic cause taxpay- appears to be those jority opinion personally denied persons who are relief under the not afforded ers who were solely because of their equal treatment in- This class would even transition rules. group. in membership a disfavored personal taxpayers who have clude those Mathews, 739-740, at at but, in political influence University quoting Mississippi who, efforts, lobbying were unsuc- in their 718, 725, Hogan, 458 U.S. Women securing a' rule for transition cessful (1982). Thus, plaintiff the disfavored themselves. taxpayers States all United class is suggest that the noneco- plaintiffs The except obtaining a tran- those successful injury suffer as members nomic alleged This affected sition rule benefit. remedied with a. class can be disfavored amorphous, generalized, and so so is the Tax Reform Act judicial order lacking totally in a common identifiable so Thus, them. no one better than treat legally non-cognizable. grievance as to be knowledge only injury is the burden more people are treated favor- argue this view that other majority short, inju- ably; suffering envy is their equal nature of the ignores the plaintiffs allege that their ry. The do not plaintiffs “dis- that the assert —the injury shared, known, by widely “burden” is parity that can be remedied in treatment” citizens, they allege that this nor can knowing that the other “satisfaction of by the “stigma” an “archaic” perpetuates any no one better burden Reform Act treats Tax belonging to plaintiffs page inju- This that identifies See than them ...” participants in worthy of “less every taxpayer in a class apparently ry is one that community.” do not political country If this is constitu- suffered. stigmatized by ob- and cannot claim to be cognizable injury under the tionally Simply, injury de- scure tax laws. protection requirement, then the beyond injury scribed an judicially redressi- country suffer a scope injury described Congress passes bill allowable injury each time ble v. RIHT to all. the Mathews court.2 See Biszko granting to some but not benefits Legislation greatly Shot Rules Ad Hoc majority upon work of and Other 2. The relies Rifle article, Constitutional?, Even Are 44 Tax L.Rev. 563 in his Professor Lawrence Corp., (1st Financial 758 F.2d
Cir.1985).
In the Matter of MAGNOLIA MARINE
CO.,
INC., Mississippi
TRANSPORT
Giving to
up face,
plain-
it a dressed
Transport Company,
Marine
Third Par
injury
tiffs’
injury
“abstract
Plaintiff,
ty
nonobservance of the Constitution”
government, or its failure to “be adminis-
CORPORATION,
LAPLACE TOWING
according
tered
to law.” Such injuries may
al.,
Party
et
Defendants,
Third
form
basis of
in our
See,
Allen,
Barbara
e.g.
courts.
Bordelon FRYE and
E.N. Bisso
Sons, Inc.,
&
Claimants-Appellants,
3326;
Valley
Forge Christian
College v.
Separa-
Americans United
*15
v.
State, Inc.,
tion Church &
464,
MAGNOLIA MARINE TRANSPORT.
485,
482,
752, 764, 765,
70 L.Ed.2d
CO., INC.,
al.,
et
Defendants-
(1982)
citing Schlesinger v. Reservists
Appellees.
War,
Stop
Committee to
208,
MAGNOLIA MARINE TRANSPORT.
2925,
L.Ed.2d 706
CO., INC.,
al.,
et
Plaintiffs
plaintiffs have,
best, alleged
“personal
Appellees,
injury
consequence
alleged
as a
con-
error,”
stitutional
which is not more than
FRYE, etc.,
Barbara Bordelon
and E.N.
psychological consequence
“the
presum-
Sons, Inc.,
Bisso &
Defendants-
ably produced by the observation of con-
Appellants.
duct
Valley
disagrees.”
with which one
No. 91-3154.
Forge,
standing to maintain this action.3 notes, majority majority argu- Professor does 3. Because the does not reach the presented taxpayer standing concerning ments not consider Mathews extend noneconomic Cohen, under Flast injury majority far the would have it reach (1968), uniformity purposes standing. page
for the See n. clause, unnecessary I it find address these 5; Zelenak, Shots, 44 Tax L.Rev. at 619. Rifle issues.