Dawson v. Steager
203 L. Ed. 2d 29, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 1349, 139 S. Ct. 698 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state tax law violates 4 U.S.C. § 111 when it provides more favorable tax treatment to retired state employees than to retired federal employees, if there are no significant differences between the two classes of employees to justify the differential treatment.
Facts:
- James Dawson spent most of his career working for the U.S. Marshals Service, a federal law enforcement agency.
- Upon retirement, Dawson became a resident of West Virginia.
- West Virginia state law provides a full income tax exemption for retirement benefits paid to certain former state and local law enforcement officers, including state police and deputy sheriffs.
- This state tax exemption does not extend to retirement benefits received by former federal law enforcement officers.
- As a result, Dawson's federal retirement pension was subject to West Virginia state income tax.
- A state trial court found that there were no significant differences between Dawson's powers and duties as a U.S. Marshal and the powers and duties of the state law enforcement officers who received the tax exemption.
Procedural Posture:
- James Dawson filed a lawsuit in a West Virginia state trial court against the state tax commissioner, alleging the state's tax law violated 4 U.S.C. § 111.
- The state trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dawson, finding the statute unconstitutionally discriminatory.
- The State of West Virginia appealed the trial court's decision to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
- The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, upholding the state tax law.
- Dawson, the petitioner, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a West Virginia state tax law that exempts retirement income for certain state law enforcement officers, but not for retired federal law enforcement officers with comparable job responsibilities, violate 4 U.S.C. § 111 by discriminating against a federal employee because of the source of his compensation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Gorsuch
Yes, the West Virginia tax law violates 4 U.S.C. § 111 by discriminating against federal employees based on the source of their compensation. The statute prohibits any state tax that treats retired state employees more favorably than retired federal employees unless significant differences between the two groups justify the disparity. Here, West Virginia affords a tax benefit to a class of retired state law enforcement officers that it denies to a comparable class of federal law enforcement retirees, like Dawson. The trial court found no significant differences in job duties between the two groups, and this finding was undisputed. The State's arguments that the favored class is small, that its intent was benign, or that federal retirees should be compared to disfavored state retirees are all unpersuasive. The narrowness of a discriminatory tax does not make it lawful, legislative intent is irrelevant under § 111, and the proper comparison is between the disfavored federal class and the favored state class. Finally, the Court rejected the State's attempt to re-characterize the law as being based on pension generosity, as the statute's plain text classifies retirees based on their former employer, not the amount of their benefits.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and strengthens the principle of intergovernmental tax immunity codified in 4 U.S.C. § 111, following the precedent set in Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury. The Court's analysis closes potential loopholes by rejecting arguments based on the narrowness of the discriminatory class or the legislature's benign intent. By focusing strictly on the differential treatment of similarly situated individuals, the ruling makes it more difficult for states to enact tax laws that favor their own former employees over comparable federal employees. This reinforces a bright-line rule that prioritizes equal treatment over a state's justifications for preferential policies, ensuring robust protection against discrimination based on the source of government compensation.
Unlock the full brief for Dawson v. Steager