stating that the Supreme Court has “completely foreclosed any claim that the nondiscriminatory imposition of costs on private entities that pass them on to States . . . unconstitutionally burdens state . . . functions”
How later courts described this case
- stating that the Supreme Court has “completely foreclosed any claim that the nondiscriminatory imposition of costs on private entities that pass them on to States . . . unconstitutionally burdens state . . . functions”
- holding that a federal law removing a tax exemption from state-issued bonds did not violate Intergovernmental Tax Immunity because the tax was “imposed on and collected from bondholders,” and not from the states
- stating that the requirement that bearer bonds be registered in order to be eligible for a federal income tax exemption applied to “local governments, the Federal Government, [and] private corporations”
- stating that "Garcia left open the possibility that some extraordinary defects in the national political process might render congressional regulation of state activities invalid, . . . ."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice Stevens,
concurring.
Although the Court properly finds support for its holding in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, *528 469 U. S. 528 (1985), the outcome of this case was equally clear well before that case was decided. See South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U. S. 367, 403-419 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). It should be emphasized, however, that neither the Court’s decision today, nor what I have written in the past, expresses any opinion about the wisdom of taxing the interest on bonds issued by state or local governments.