Document: 481 U.S. 454 107 S.Ct. 1855 95 L.Ed.2d 404 BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitionerv.OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION et al. No. 86-337. Argued March 25, 1987. Decided April 28, Syllabus Section 306 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act 1976—which prohibits discriminatory state taxation railroad property—provides, in § 306(b)(1), that a State may not "assess rail transportation property at value has higher ratio to true market . than assessed other commercial industrial same assessment jurisdiction property." 306(c) includes, inter alia, provisions declaring an exception from Tax Injunction Act, conferring on district courts prevent violations 306(b), stating "[t]he burden proof determining is governed by law." Petitioner filed this action Federal District Court, alleging respondents, Oklahoma authorities their members, had discriminated against petitioner taxes for 1982 tax year, particularly overvaluing petitioner's property. In Oklahoma, determination liability involves entire system allocating portion then assessing taxable railroad's only certain percentage value, which, during year question, was concededly employed with respect all State. Petitioner's claim based solely upon State's overvaluation "true value" system. Holding does permit exercise federal review such claims unless shows purposeful intent, Court found no showing been made here dismissed case lack subject-matter jurisdiction. The Appeals affirmed. Held: permits federal-court alleged its Pp. 460-464. (a) Respondents' contention never district-court without merit. language 306(b)(1) makes clear order compare actual ratios applicable property, it necessary determine what values" are. obstacle respondents' position first occurrence phrase statute should be read as "state determined law. It would inconsistent allocate issue which could litigated court place. additional instructing methods proving "other property" do not, respondents claim, raise implication valuation proved all. 460-463. (b) below plaintiff preliminary intentional discrimination also untenable. 306(b) speaks terms "acts" "unreasonably discriminate interstate commerce"; nowhere refer actor's intent. Moreover, provides relief granted if exceeds least 5% That provision sense prohibition litigation de minimis disparate-impact claims, support view Congress intended reach overvaluation. 463—464. (c) contentions injunctive offends principles comity, restrictions actions under are avoid crowded dockets unreasonable delay collection process, involve policy considerations have weighed heavily legislators who considered predecessors. This free reconsider matters. P. 464. Reversed. MARSHALL, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Betty Jo Christian, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Albert G. Lauber, Jr., United States amicus curiae, supporting David W. Lee, City, Okl., respondents. Justice MARSHALL 1 presented whether 1976, 49 U.S.C. 11503, authorities. 2 * after 15 years intermittent inconclusive legislative action, passed Pub.L. 94-210, 90 Stat. 31 (Act). Act's purpose, stated congressional declaration policy, "to provide means rehabilitate maintain physical facilities, improve operations structure, restore financial stability railway States." 101(a). Among chosen fulfill these objectives, goal furthering stability, After extended period investigation, concluded "railroads over-taxed $50 million each year." H.R.Rep. 94-725, p. 78 (1975). 3 Congress' solution problem railroads embodied currently codified 11503.1 broad terms, declared or rates imposed differ significantly prohibited burdens commerce.2 28 1341, allowing challenge courts.3 were given 3-year grace period, until February 1979, bring systems into compliance statutory requirements. 306(2)(b), 54; see Oct. 17, 1978, 95-473, 92 1466. 4 present Burlington Northern Western 3, 1983. complaint Commission Board Equalization year.4 particular, overvalued 5 proceeds several discrete stages. step ascertain amount subject tax. follows procedure railroad, total Oklahoma. calculating weighted average original cost assets capitalized net operating income. Response Complaint ¶ 14, App. 16. A similar valuing apportioning taxing almost jurisdictions apply railroads. See J. Runke & A. Finder, Taxation Railroads Relief Programs 23-32 (1977). proportion took 3.53% State, allocation dispute. Brief 9, n. 14. 6 assess full purposes. Okla. Const., Art. 10, 8 (assessment exceed 35% value). Therefore, second application ratio. 1982, 10.87% value. dispute 7 thus "true" approximately $3.6 billion. 22. contended fair own methodology resulted $1.5 34, Pet. Cert. 31a. following decision Tenth Circuit R. Co. v. Lennen, 715 F.2d 494 (1983), cert. denied, 467 1230, 104 2690, 81 884 (1984), held 11503 " 'can make strong intent.' CIV 83-419-R (WD Jan. 8, 1985), 10a (quoting supra, 498). made, "for matter jurisdiction" Rule Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). 17a. affirmed unpublished opinion. 85-1657 (CA10 May 2, 1986). We certiorari, 479 913, 313, 93 287 (1986), resolve conflict between Eighth Bair, 766 1222 (1985). now reverse. II 9 There some difference proper interpretation 11503. Appeals, discrimination. Respondents suggest claims. 9; Tr. Oral Arg. 41, 52-53. Our reading convinces us both positions 10 parties canvassed length 15-year history protection became find results investigation irrelevant. Legislative can legitimate guide purpose obscured ambiguity, but "[i]n absence 'clearly expressed intention contrary,' itself 'must ordinarily regarded conclusive.' James, 478 597, 606, 106 3116, 3121, 483 (1986) Consumer Product Safety Comm'n GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 102, 108, 100 2051, 2056, 64 (1980)). Unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise, "[w]hen we unambiguous, judicial inquiry complete." Rubin States, 449 424, 430, 101 698, 701, 66 633 (1981). 11 case, plainly declares purpose. Subsection (b)(1) forbids any ratios, take 11503(b)(1) value," they contend essence whatever determines be, resulting further scrutiny courts. 12 11503(c), states attempt meet argument pointing remainder subsection (c), specifically instructs either through statistical sampling sale individual properties, "all "in jurisdiction." 11503(c)(1). instructions show issues allocated before court. 13 fact, however, leads opposite conclusion. general statement subjects inquiry, law, followed specific instruction how two those addressed. These placement meaning, words limitation preceding statement, rather particular grant authority use establishing values where will result satisfaction court." said one kind may, court's discretion, means; raises another all.5 depends addition complete stands. Adoption require amendment construction statute, must rejected here. 14 taken unsatisfactory. disputes alleges, showing, 10a; F.2d, 498. interpretation. intent actor. acts plain 11503(b), facially disparities systematic undervaluation requirement. explain sentence interpreted strikingly different senses depending Further our conclusion "[r]elief percent" Such courts, hard reconcile proposition If evil remedied, did propose will, so long unfairly retained nickel out every dollar? Appeals' suggested interpolation requirement draws statute's III 16 comity. 41-42. "an inevitable clog dockets" "unreasonable process." 10a. go saying them now. 17 306, 26c (1976 ed.), slightly altered when 1978 recodified 1337 seq. changes "may construed making substantive change laws replaced." 3(a), For convenience, references text Title 11503(b) relevant part: "The unreasonably commerce, subdivision acting them: "(1) "(2) levy collect clause (1) subsection. ." 11503(c) provides: "Notwithstanding section 1341 title regard controversy citizenship parties, jurisdiction, concurrent violation section. percent, cannot random-sampling method known sales study (to carried study), shall find, section— property; ad valorem rate district." submits recommendation Equalization, final decision. 15-16. challenged railroad; sole methodology, evaluation capital refusal deductions obsolete. therefore question appropriateness accounting instead restricted challenging factual determinations preferred applied. Accordingly express issue.

Category: 7