Dawson v. Steager
U.S. Supreme Court · decided February 20, 2019 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- February 20, 2019
- Term
- October Term 2018
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Gorsuch
- Issue area
- Federalism
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court. If you spent your career as a state law enforcement officer in West Virginia, you're likely to be eligible for a generous tax exemption when you retire. But if you served in federal law enforcement, West Virginia will deny you the same benefit. The question we face is whether a State may discriminate against federal retirees in that way. For most of his career, James Dawson worked in the U. S. Marshals Service. After he retired, he began looking into the tax treatment of his pension. It turns out that his home State, West Virginia, doesn't tax the pension benefits of certain former state law enforcement employees. But it does tax the benefits of all former federal employees. So Mr. Dawson brought this lawsuit alleging that West Virginia violated 4 U.S.C. § 111. In that statute, the United States has consented to state taxation of the "pay or compensation" of "officer[s] or employee[s] of the United States," but only if the "taxation does not discriminate against the officer or employee because of the source of the pay or compensation." § 111(a). Section 111 codifies a legal doctrine almost as old as the Nation. In McCulloch v. Maryland , 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819), this Court invoked the Constitution's Supremacy Clause to invalidate Maryland's effort to levy a tax on the Bank of the United States. Chief Justice…
Excerpt of a 15,374-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.