Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Direct Marketing Assn. v. Brohl

Docket No.: 13-1032
Certiorari Granted: Jul 1 2014
Argued: December 8, 2014
Decided: 3/03/15

Topics:

Anti-Injunction Act, Commerce Clause, EPA, Establishment Clause, Internal Revenue Code, equitable relief, stare decisis

PartyNames: Direct Marketing Association v. Barbara Brohl, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Revenue
Petitioner: Direct Marketing Association
Respondent: Barbara Brohl, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Revenue

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Citation: 735 F.3d 904
Supreme Court Docket

Direct Marketing Association
v.
Barbara Brohl, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Revenue
Question Presented:

The Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. 1341 ("TIA'), provides, with regard to federal court jurisdiction, that "[t]he district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State." The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the TIA bars the exercise of federal court jurisdiction over a suit brought by the Petitioner challenging the constitutionality of a Colorado law, Colo. Rev. Stat. $$ 39-21-112(3.5)(c) & (d), which imposes informational notice and reporting requirements, and substantial penalties for non-compliance, on out-of-state retailers that do not collect Colorado sales tax. The Tenth Circuit's ruling diverges from this Court's leading precedent and creates a split among the Circuit Courts of Appeals regarding the scope of the TIA's limitation on federal court jurisdiction, presenting the following question: Whether the TIA bars federal court jurisdiction over a suit brought by non-taxpayers to enjoin the informational notice and reporting requirements of a state law that neither imposes a tax, nor requires the collection of a tax, but serves only as a secondary aspect of state tax administration?

Direct Marketing Assn. v. Brohl
ORAL ARGUMENT

December 8, 2014

Listen to Oral Argument in Direct Marketing Assn. v. Brohl
Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED
Vote: 9-0
Majority: unanimous
Concurring: Kennedy,Ginsburg,Breyer,in which Sotomayor,in part
Opinion By:
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)