Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt
538 U.S. 488 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel a state to substitute a sister state's law for its own when the forum state is competent to legislate on the subject matter, and it does not require a state to apply another state's sovereign immunity statute when doing so would violate the forum state's legitimate public policy.
Facts:
- Gilbert P. Hyatt filed a part-year resident income tax return in California for 1991, claiming he had become a resident of Nevada on October 1, 1991.
- In 1993, the California Franchise Tax Board (CFTB) began an audit of Hyatt, focusing on whether his change of residency occurred before he received substantial licensing fees.
- Following the audit, CFTB concluded Hyatt was a California resident until April 1992 and issued notices for back taxes and substantial civil fraud penalties.
- Hyatt alleged that during the audit, CFTB committed intentional torts against him, including invasion of privacy, fraud, and outrageous conduct.
- Hyatt was a resident of Nevada when he allegedly suffered injury from CFTB's actions.
- At least some of the alleged tortious conduct by CFTB agents occurred within the state of Nevada.
Procedural Posture:
- Gilbert P. Hyatt sued the California Franchise Tax Board (CFTB) for several torts in the Clark County District Court in Nevada, a state trial court.
- CFTB filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the trial court was required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause to apply a California statute that gave CFTB immunity from suit.
- The Nevada trial court denied CFTB's motion.
- CFTB petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court, the state's highest court, for a writ of mandamus to order the dismissal of the case.
- The Nevada Supreme Court first granted the writ, but on rehearing, it vacated its decision.
- In its final ruling, the Nevada Supreme Court held that while the negligence claim should be dismissed under principles of comity, the intentional tort claims could proceed because applying California's immunity statute would violate Nevada's public policy.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Nevada Supreme Court's decision regarding the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
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 the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution require a state court to apply a sister state's statute granting immunity from suit to its agencies, even when applying that immunity would violate the forum state's own public policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
No. The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a state to apply a sister state's sovereign immunity statute when it has a significant interest in the litigation and the sister state's law conflicts with its own public policy. The Clause's command is less demanding with respect to the laws of sister states than it is for their judgments. A state need not 'substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate.' Nevada is competent to legislate regarding tortious injuries that its citizens suffer within its borders. The Court rejected creating a new rule that would require balancing states' 'core sovereignty' interests, noting that its past attempts at such balancing proved 'unsound in principle and unworkable in practice.' Citing Nevada v. Hall, the Court found no constitutionally significant distinction between the state interests at stake in that case (a university's liability for a car accident) and this one (a tax agency's liability for torts during an audit).
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and strengthens the principle from Nevada v. Hall, holding that state sovereign immunity is not entitled to full faith and credit in the courts of a sister state when it conflicts with the forum state's public policy. By explicitly refusing to adopt a balancing test for competing 'core' sovereign interests, the Court solidified a more predictable rule that favors the forum state's law if that state has a significant connection to the dispute. This gives individuals a greater ability to seek redress against state governments for torts committed outside the defendant state's borders, limiting the extraterritorial reach of a state's self-imposed immunity.
Unlock the full brief for Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt