Breyer, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg; Alito (all but Part II–B–2)
Concurrence
Roberts (in part), joined by Thomas
Concurrence
Alito (in part)
Dissent
Stevens, joined by Souter
The City of Valdez in Alaska imposed a property tax that, in practice, applied only to large oil tankers. Polar Tankers, a ConocoPhillips subsidiary, sued, arguing that the tax violated the Tonnage Clause of the Constitution, which forbids a state, "without the Consent of Congress, [to] lay any Duty of Tonnage."
The Supreme Court agreed with Polar Tankers. The court noted that the original meaning of the clause was as a term of art for a tax imposed that varies with "the internal cubic capacity of a vessel," but emphasized that a consistent line of cases had read the clause broadly, "forbidding a State to do that indirectly which she is forbidden ... to do directly."[1] Those cases, the court concluded, stood for the proposition that the tonnage clause's prohibition reaches any taxes or duties on a ship, "whether a fixed sum upon its whole tonnage, or a sum to be ascertained by comparing the amount of tonnage with the rate of duty[,] ... regardless of [the tax or duty's] name or form ... which operate to impose a charge for the privilege of entering, trading in, or lying in a port."[2]
With this premise in mind, the court concluded that because Valdez taxes "ships and to no other property at all[,] ... in order to obtain revenue for general city purposes[, this was] ... the kind of tax that the Tonnage Clause forbids Valdez to impose without the consent of Congress, consent that Valdez lacks."
^Id. at _ (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Steamship Co. v. Portwardens, 73U.S. (6 Wall.) 31, 35 (1867) and Clyde Mallory Lines v. Alabama ex rel. State Docks Comm'n, 296U.S. 261, 265-56 (1935)).
External linksedit
Text of Polar Tankers, Inc. v. City of Valdez, 557U.S. 1 (2009) is available from:CornellJustiaOyez (oral argument audio)
polar, tankers, city, valdez, 2009, decision, supreme, court, united, states, involving, tonnage, clause, united, states, constitution, polar, tankers, city, valdezsupreme, court, united, statesargued, april, 2009decided, june, 2009full, case, namecitations557. Polar Tankers Inc v City of Valdez 557 U S 1 2009 was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the tonnage clause of the United States Constitution Polar Tankers v City of ValdezSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued April 1 2009Decided June 15 2009Full case namePolar Tankers Inc v City of ValdezCitations557 U S 1 more 129 S Ct 2277 174 L Ed 2d 1Case historyPriorjudgment for plaintiff 3AN 00 09665 CI Alaska Super 2006 reversed and remanded 182 P 3d 614 Alaska 2008 reversed and remanded HoldingThe tonnage clause forbids a city with a port to levy a property tax on ships using the harborCourt membershipChief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices John P Stevens Antonin ScaliaAnthony Kennedy David SouterClarence Thomas Ruth Bader GinsburgStephen Breyer Samuel AlitoCase opinionsMajorityBreyer joined by Scalia Kennedy Ginsburg Alito all but Part II B 2 ConcurrenceRoberts in part joined by ThomasConcurrenceAlito in part DissentStevens joined by Souter The City of Valdez in Alaska imposed a property tax that in practice applied only to large oil tankers Polar Tankers a ConocoPhillips subsidiary sued arguing that the tax violated the Tonnage Clause of the Constitution which forbids a state without the Consent of Congress to lay any Duty of Tonnage The Supreme Court agreed with Polar Tankers The court noted that the original meaning of the clause was as a term of art for a tax imposed that varies with the internal cubic capacity of a vessel but emphasized that a consistent line of cases had read the clause broadly forbidding a State to do that indirectly which she is forbidden to do directly 1 Those cases the court concluded stood for the proposition that the tonnage clause s prohibition reaches any taxes or duties on a ship whether a fixed sum upon its whole tonnage or a sum to be ascertained by comparing the amount of tonnage with the rate of duty regardless of the tax or duty s name or form which operate to impose a charge for the privilege of entering trading in or lying in a port 2 With this premise in mind the court concluded that because Valdez taxes ships and to no other property at all in order to obtain revenue for general city purposes this was the kind of tax that the Tonnage Clause forbids Valdez to impose without the consent of Congress consent that Valdez lacks See also editList of United States Supreme Court cases volume 557 List of United States Supreme Court casesReferences edit Slip op at internal quotation marks omitted quoting Passenger Cases 48 U S 7 How 283 458 1849 Id at internal quotation marks omitted quoting Steamship Co v Portwardens 73 U S 6 Wall 31 35 1867 and Clyde Mallory Lines v Alabama ex rel State Docks Comm n 296 U S 261 265 56 1935 External links editText of Polar Tankers Inc v City of Valdez 557 U S 1 2009 is available from Cornell Justia Oyez oral argument audio Supreme Court slip opinion archived nbsp This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Polar Tankers Inc v City of Valdez amp oldid 1175148620, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
