[ad_1]
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a state could maintain its sovereign immunity from prosecutions in other states, overturning an earlier decision of the high court.
In a decision 5-4 written by Justice Clarence Thomas, conservative judges of the court concluded that a state could not be sued by a private party in the jurisdictional system of another state without the consent of that State. The ruling overturns an earlier 1979 ruling that the Constitution did not protect states from private prosecutions in other states.
Thomas wrote that the previous decision "misinterpreted the historical records and misunderstood" the implicit ordering of relations within the federal system necessary to make the Constitution an applicable governing charter and to give every provision of that document the full effect wanted by the Framers "".
He said the precedent was "irreconcilable with our constitutional structure and with historical evidence" showing that states were immune from private prosecution.
The case paves the way for a potential conflict between the inventor of the Gilbert Hyatt microchip and the California Franchise Tax Board, which has lasted for several decades. Hyatt sued the Nevada court for damages for the agency's conduct during an audit of his home.
The board of directors had suspected that Hyatt had moved to Nevada to avoid paying the personal income tax and had conducted a thorough audit of the personal income tax, where they had shared personal information with them. his associates. In 1992, Hyatt sued the tax agency for damages resulting from the audit.
The case has been brought to the Supreme Court three times since then. The court, in its third ruling on Monday, concluded that the tax agency could not be sued by Hyatt in a Nevada court.
The judges Brett Kavanaugh
Brett Michael KavanaughMichael Bennet must find a way to stand out in the crowd Michael Bennet, a welcome addition to the Democratic Party's press field of 2020 builds suspense for the Supreme Court's decisions on abortion and LGBT PLUS, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts and Samuel Alito joined the notice.
Judge Stephen Breyer, in a dissenting opinion concurred in by Judges Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, challenged the reasoning of the majority.
"[T]Relevant history and precedents have refuted the assertion that states are entitled to absolute immunity before the courts of each, "wrote Breyer.
Breyer also criticized the court for overturning a decision on a 5-4 decision, instead of a wider majority.
"Today's decision can only lead us to wonder what cases the court will then cancel," said Breyer.
[ad_2]
Source link