Amicus Brief — Bamford v. Garrett

October Term, 1976

No. 76-234

JAMES B. BAMFORD, Chairman, DAVID SHI-

REY, STEWART DE TURK, BOARD OF AS-

SESSMENT APPEAL, COUNTY OF BERKS,

Petitioners

vs.

DONALD F. GARRETT, SHARON B. GAR-

RETT, VERA A. TURPIN,

Respondents

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE

AND

BRIEF OF PENNSYLVANIA STATE ASSOCI-

ATION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS

AMICUS CURIAE

ROBERT L. RUBENDALL,

208-210 Walnut Street,

Harrisburg, PA 17108,

(717) 255-8031

Attorney for Amicus

Curiae

Of Counsel:

METZGER, HAFER, KEEFER,

THOMAS AND Woop,

208-210 Walnut Street,

Harrisburg, PA 17108

(717) 255-8000

SS

Murrelle Printing Co., Law Printers, Box 100, Sayre, Pa. 18840

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Motion for Leave To File Brief Amicus Curiae ... 1

Brief of Pennsylvania State Association of County

Commissioners, Amicus Curiae:

Interest of Amicus Curiae ............... 4

The Question Presented ................. 5

Argument:

The remedies available to Respondents under

State law and in the State courts are plain,

speedy and efficient and thus under 28

U.S.C. §1341 the District Court correctly

dismissed for lack of subject-matter juris-

EAS Pre re re 6

RE ha Ben eae ae ele ee 13

TABLE OF CITATIONS

CASES:

Bland v. McHann, 463 F.2d 21 (5th Cir. 1972),

cert. denied 410 U.S. 966 (1973) ......... i)

Borough of Greentree v. Board of Property Assess-

ments, 328 A.2d 819 (1974) ..........55- 11,12

Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co. v. Huffman,

Fe F. . BPPrrrrrrrrrrryr Te 7

Mathews v. Rogers, 284 U.S. 521 (1932) ....... 7,8

Miller v. Bauer, 517 F.2d 27 (7th Cir. 1975) .... 10

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) ......... 7 \

W.E.B. DuBois Club of America v. Clark, 389 U.S. Motion for Leave To File Brief

re rrr 11 |

STATUTES: |

Act of May 10, 1913, P.L. 199, 16 P.S. Sec. 7221 2 | In The

Act of July 28, 1953, P.L. 723, 16 P.S. Sec. 3432-2 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Act of August 9, 1955, P.L. 323, 16 P.S. Sec. 440 2

2B USC. Sec. 1541 2... cccccccceces 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13 October Term, 1976

2B UBL. Gan. TBE 2c ccccccctccscsccescvces 2 | No. 76 -234

2B UBL. Gas. IFES .ccccccccccvccsccccscsces 2

JAMES B. BAMFORD, Chairman, DAVID SHIREY,

STEWART DE TURK, BOARD OF ASSESSMENT

APPEAL, COUNTY OF BERKS,

Petitioners

vs.

DONALD F. GARRETT, SHARON B. GARRETT,

VERA A. TURPIN,

Respondents

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE

Pursuant to Rule 42(3) of the Rules of this Court,

Pennsylvania State Association of County Commissioners

respectfully moves the Court for leave to file a brief ami-

ii cus curiae in the above-entitled case. Counsel for Respon-

Motion for Leave To File Brief

dents has refused to consent to the filing of such brief;

the Petitioners have granted their consent.

Pennsylvania State Association of County Commis-

sioners (hereinafter referred to as Commissioners”) is

the statutorily authorized organization of all of the com-

missioners, or their equivalents in home rule counties, of

the 67 Counties of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

See Act of May 10, 1913, P.L. 199, 16 P.S. §7221, Act

of July 28, 1953, P.L. 723, 16 P.S. §3432, and Act of

August 9, 1955, P.L. 323, 16 P.S. §440.

At the annual meeting of the Commissioners in Pitts-

burgh on August 12, 1976, the Association, by unanimous

vote, took action to authorize the filing of a brief amicus

curiae on behalf of each of the 67 Counties of the Com-

monwealth of Pennsylvania.

As such it is respectfully submitted that under a lib-

eral interpretation of Rule 42(4) giving political subdi-

visions of a State the right to file briefs amicus curiae

without consent of the parties, this motion should be

granted.

The question presented in the instant case is a mat-

ter of utmost importance to each County. If the decision

of the Court of Appeals is allowed to stand it will seri-

ously impinge on the ability of the Counties to effective-

ly assess, levy and collect taxes so vitally important if they

are to be able to finance the carrying out of essential gov-

ernment functions. It will mean that at any time the en-

tire underpinning of a County’s fiscal basis can be thrown

in disarray by the filing of a class action suit in the United

States courts by a taxpayer alleging 28 U.S.C. §§1981 and

1983 violations.

Motion for Leave To File Brief

Because it is so important that Your Honorable Court

should afford to Petitioners the right to show why the de-

cision of the Court of Appeals is in error and should be

reversed, we feel that in passing upon the petition for writ

of certiorari the effect upon and the vital interest to the

Commissioners of this matter should be before the Court

by our being permitted to file a brief amicus curiae.

CONCLUSION

For the above-stated reasons we respectfully urge the

Court to grant this motion to file the accompanying ami-

cus brief in the present case in support of the position of

the Petitioner.

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT L. RUBENDALL,

208-210 Walnut Street,

Harrisburg, PA 17108,

(717) 255-8031

Attorney for Pennsyl-

vania State Association

of County Commission-

ers

Of Counsel:

METZGER, HAFER, KEEFER,

THOMAS AND Woop

208-210 Walnut Street

Harrisburg, PA 17108

(717) 255-8000

Interest of Amicus Curiae

In The

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1976

No. 76°239

JAMES B. BAMFORD, Chairman, DAVID SHIREY,

STEWART DE TURK, BOARD OF ASSESSMENT AP-

PEAL, COUNTY OF BERKS,

Petitioners

vs.

DONALD F. GARRETT, SHARON B. GARRETT,

VERA A. TURPIN,

Respondents

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

BRIEF OF PENNSYLVANIA STATE ASSOCIATION

OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AMICUS CURIAE

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

The interest of Amicus Curiae is set out in the Mo-

tion for Leave To File Brief Amicus Curiae.

Question Presented

THE QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that

the State administrative remedies and judicial review did

not provide a plain, speedy and efficient remedy so as to

preclude the operation of 28 U.S.C. §1341 prohibiting the

United States District Courts from enjoining, suspending

or restraining the assessment, levy or collection of any tax

under State law.

Argument

ARGUMENT

The Remedies Available to Respondents Under State Law

and in the State Courts Are Plain, Speedy and Efficient

and Thus Under 28 U.S.C. §1341 the District Court Cor-

rectly Dismissed for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Introduction

The District Court found that §1341 applied and

dismissed the matter for lack of subject-matter jurisdic-

tion. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded on

what we shall show was a narrow interpretation of the

administrative remedies available. an erroneous finding

as to the availability of State equitable relief, and a lim-

itation on the effect of §1341 inconsistent with the plain

meaning of the statute and its uniform interpretation by

this Court and the Courts of Appeals.

A.

28 U.S.C. §1341 Prohibits United States District Court

Injunctive Relief in State and Local Tax Matters Because

Our Federal System Requires That the Vital Internal Fis-

cal Operations of the States Be Free From Such Interfer-

ence

In pointing out that the State remedy need not be

the best remedy available or even equal to or better than

Argument

the remedy available in the federal courts, the District

Court states (A. 11) that: “The statute, moreover, codi-

fies the long-standing, deeply rooted principle of federal

equitable jurisdiction which restrains the federal courts

from interference with the internal fiscal operations of

the states. Great Lakes Dredge & Dry Dock Co. v. Huff-

man, 319 U.S. 293 (1942); Mathews v. Rodgers, 284

U.S. 521 (1932) .”

This Court has repeatedly asserted that in the inter-

est of federalism, the federal courts must be reluctant to

interfere with the states in their administration of state

law. In Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976), it was

stated (at pp. 378 and 380):

“Where, as here, the exercise of authority by

state officials is attacked, federal courts must be con-

stantly mindful of the ‘special delicacy of the ad-

justment to be preserved between federal equitable

power and State administration of its own law.’

Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U.S. 117, 120 (1951) * * *

When a plaintiff seeks to enjoin the activity of

a government agency, even within a unitary court

system, his case must contend with ‘the well-estab-

lished rule that the Government has traditionally

been granted the widest latitude in the dispatch of

its own internal affairs’, Cafeteria Workers v. Mc-

Elroy, 367 U.S. 886, 896 (1961), * * *”

Despite the clear enunciation of this Court’ that

federal courts are to resist attempts to have them in-

1 Mathews v. Rogers, 284 U.S. 521, 525, 526 (1932), and

Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U.S. 293,

298 (1943).

Argument

terfere with the internal operations of the states, the Court

of Appeals, while frankly recognizing that its interpreta-

tion of the law is not in keeping with “the broad federal-

ism doctrine developed in the judicial decisions” (A. 21),

nevertheless has chosen to interpret §1341 as being pri-

marily concerned with injunctions of tax assessments by

foreign corporations. We respectfully submit that the

plain wording of §1341 makes no such limitation and the

courts, including this Court have not so done. It is a car-

dinal rule of statutory construction that when the words

of a statute are clear and unambiguous, the legislative

intent is to be derived from the plain meaning of these

words and reference to remarks made by individual legis-

lators during the passage of the statute is inappropriate.

The Court of Appeals in reaching for support to limit the

applicaticn of the express words of Congress prohibiting

federal injunctions in State tax matters, §1341, an interpre-

tation which it admits has not found favor with the courts,

has clearly violated this principle of statutory construc-

tion (A. 22-23).

The present case is manifestly one that will create a

chaotic situation for the 67 Counties of Pennsylvania ap-

pearing here as amicus curiae as it will seriously encroach

on their “rightful independence” and “interfere by in-

junction with their fiscal operations.” The very thing this

Court in Mathews, supra, states are the principal reasons

why federal equitable relief must be denied (at 284 US.

525).

Argument

B.

The Administrative Remedies With De Novo Appeal to

the State Courts Provide Respondents a Plain, Speedy and

Efficient Remedy

The District Court (A. 5, 6) and the Court of Ap-

peals (A. 29, 30) in their opinions set forth the statutory

right of any property holder in Pennsylvania to appeal his

assessment to a Board of Assessment Appeals and, if un-

satisfied there, to the Court of Common Pleas to be heard

de novo.

In Bland v. McHann, 463 F.2d 21 (5th Cir. 1972),

cert. denied 410 U.S. 966 (1973), a case on all fours

with the present case, where black property owners al-

leged discrimination in the assessment of taxes and sought

federal injunctive relief, the Court found that the state

administrative and judicial review provisions, while not

permitting a class action, were, nevertheless, “plain, speedy

and efficient’’ and affirmed the district court’s dismissal

of the action based on the lack of jurisdiction because of

the §1341 prohibition. The state remedies there were in

no manner superior to those provided by Pennsylvania

law and we respectfully submit that Your Honorable

Court, consistent with your denial of certiorari in that

case, should grant certiorari here and, after hearing argu-

ment, reverse.

The District Court had no difficulty in finding that

the state remedies would provide relief akin to a class ac-

tion suit, stating (at A. 7):

“* * * we cannot assume that the use, for ex-

ample, of multiple or mass appeals within and across

10

Argument

neighborhood lines or other possible procedures

combined with the ingenuity expected of assessment

authorities to reach the inequities, if any, presented

and proved, will not obtain a decision on the issues

presented notwithstanding facial deficiencies as to

the individual taxpayer’s remedies in the statute.”

Similarly in Miller v. Bauer, 517 F.2d 27, 32 (7th

Cir. 1975), where the lack of class action relief in the

state courts was alleged for the inapplicability of the

§1341 prohibition, the Court found the state remedies ade-

quate, stating:

“We find that plaintiffs’ contention [that these

remedies are inadequate in that there is no provision

for a class action] unpersuasive. Since the legal

claims of the plaintiffs and their fellow class mem-

bers are allegedly the same, one suit should be suf-

ficient to determine the constitutionality of the tax.

[Citing Mathews v. Rogers, supra]. Moreover, the

State Board itself could upon being made aware of

the situation through a single claim, order reassess-

ment of the entire area involved . . . We will not as-

sume that the Board would fail to perform its duty

under the Constitution or the Indiana statutes.”

We respectfully submit there is no indication that the

state authorities and the state courts will not, in the han-

dling of Respondents’ appeals, adapt their procedures to

provide them a plain, speedy and efficient remedy.

ee

11

Argument

Cc.

Relief in a State Equity Proceeding Is Not Precluded

In response to Respondents’ contention that they

could not proceed in equity in the Pennsylvania Courts,

the District Court, after reviewing the Pennsylvania deci-

sions concluded that: “The particular pitch of this case,

we believe is such that it is cognizable in a court of equity

in Pennsylvania, despite the contracted scope of equitable

jurisdiction.” (A. 10, 11) The Court of Appeals in a

strained interpretation of Pennsylvania case law found

otherwise and reversed partly on the absence or uncer-

tainty of Pennsylvania equity jurisdiction (A. 25-29, 34).

We respectfully submit that it is not essential for a

remedy in a matter involving a constitutional challenge

to be equitable in nature for it to be an adequate remedy

to preclude an injunction proceeding in the federal courts.

This Court in W.E.B. DuBois Club of America v. Clark,

389 U.S. 309, 311-312 (1967), held that the existence of

review by an administrative board precluded its circum-

vention by an action in a federal district court for injunc-

tive relief. However, we believe that, as the District Court

found, equity jurisdiction is not precluded to the Respon-

dents.

The majority opinion in Borough of Greentree v.

Board of Property Assessments, 328 A.2d 819 (1974),

clearly holds that the Pennsylvania courts will accept equi-

table jurisdiction in tax matters where there is a constitu-

tional attack and the statutory-prescribed remedy is inade-

quate in the circumstances. Therefore, in the present case,

12

Argument

if Respondents can show that “* * * the statutory rem-

edy is pointless or inadequate” (Greentree, p. 824) , equi-

ty jurisdiction is available to them in Pennsylvania.

The Court of Appeals would ignore Greentree be-

cause Only one judge joined in the majority opinion, one

judge concurred in the result and one judge, who had also

joined in the majority opinion, joined in the concurring

opinion. However, the concurring opinion recognizes a

broader area of equitable jurisdiction and holds that equi-

ty will take jurisdiction in tax matters where there is a

constitutional challenge even though there is a statutory

remedy and does not require that it be shown to be in-

adequate. (Greentree, pp. 826, 827).

13

Argument

CONCLUSION

We respectfully submit that the Court of Appeals

erred in holding that the 28 U.S.C. §1341 prohibition

was not intended to apply in a constitutional attack on a

taxing statute such as here involved, erred in holding that

the statutory remedy was not plain, speedy and efficient,

and erred in finding that equitable relief in the Pennsyl-

vania courts would be denied to Respondents. Where-

fore, on behalf of the County Commissioners of the 67

Counties of Pennsylvania, whose internal fiscal affairs

will be thrown into disarray if the decision is allowed to

stand, we join in the petition for writ of certiorari and

urge that it be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

RoBERT L. RUBENDALL,

208-210 Walnut Street,

Harrisburg, PA 17108,

(717) 255-8031,

Attorney for Pennsyl-

vania State Association

of County Commission-

ers

Of Counsel:

METZGER, HAFER, KEEFER,

THOMAS AND Woop,

209-210 Walnut Street,

Harrisburg, PA 17108,

(717) 255-8000