Opinion ID: 4388694
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: De Minimis Exception

Text: We agree with the United States that Supreme Court case law compels the rejection of a de minimis exception to the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. The recent decision in Dawson v. Steager, 139 S. Ct. 698 (2019), supports this position. There, the Court suggested that any discriminatory burden on the federal government is impermissible, writing that “[s]ection 111 disallows any state tax that discriminates against a federal officer or employee.” Id. at 704 (citing 4 U.S.C. § 111). The Court had previously explained that the prohibition against discriminatory taxes in § 111 “is coextensive with the 32 UNITED STATES V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA prohibition against discriminatory taxes embodied in the modern constitutional doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity.” Davis v. Mich. Dep’t of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 813 (1989). The parties do not dispute that the principles of the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine apply to the general intergovernmental immunity doctrine. See North Dakota, 495 U.S. at 434–39 (plurality opinion). Accordingly, we are not prepared to recognize a de minimis exception to the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. Any economic burden that is discriminatorily imposed on the federal government is unlawful. 9 In relying on a de minimis exception, the district court applied incorrect law and therefore abused its discretion.