Document: 425 U.S. 794 96 S.Ct. 1845 48 L.Ed.2d 376 State of ARIZONAv.State NEW MEXICO. No. 70, Orig. May 24, 1976. PER CURIAM. 1 The Arizona, as a consumer, and its citizens, consumers, purchase substantial amounts electrical energy generated in New Mexico by three Arizona utilities operating generating facilities there. Two the are investor-owned public service corporations; third, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement Power District, operates federal reclamation project is political subdivision Arizona. retail their through interstate lines only to consumers and, for that reason, incur no liability gross receipts tax which incurred at point sale.1 2 In 1975 passed "Electrical Energy Tax Act2 imposes on generation electricity rate 4/10 one mill per net kilowatt hour generated. nondiscriminatory face: it taxes all regardless what done with after However, Act provides credit against amount paid consumed Mexico. relevant section reads: 3 "On inside this state was subject tax, such may be credited due state."3 4 concedes4 will not able take advantage because sales outside that, them, practical effect Mexico's statutory scheme impose greater than 4% On within 5 Seeking invoke our original jurisdiction under Art. III, § 2, cls. Constitution 28 U.S.C. 1251(a)(1), has filed motion leave file bill complaint asks declaratory relief constitutes an unconstitutional discrimination burden upon commerce, denies citizens process equal protection laws violation Fourteenth Amendment Constitution, abridges privileges immunities guaranteed them IV, Constitution. also we enjoin from assessing, levying, or collecting imposed Act. 6 purports bring suit proprietary capacity consumer large quantities Parens patriae For who consume pay urges economic incidence falls citizens. It argues discriminates, intended discriminate, placing burdens borne reason provisions claims have forum other Court assert these claims. 7 represents involved chose September 15, 1975, but, instead, joined seeking judgment action District Santa Fe County, N. M.5 That raises same constitutional issues would presented now seeks Court.6 8 We recently reaffirmed "our should invoked sparingly" Illinois v. City Milwaukee, 406 91, 93-94, 92 1385, 1388, 31 712, 718 (1972), where additionally stated: 9 "We construe do cl. honor but make obligatory appropriate cases. And question concerns, course, seriousness dignity claim; yet beyond necessarily involves availability another there over named parties, tendered litigated, had. incline sparing use so increasing duties appellate docket suffer." 10 And, nearly 40 years ago Massachusetts Missouri, 308 1, 18-19, 60 39, 43, 84 L.Ed. 3, (1939), said: 11 "In exercise truly fulfill purpose must look nature interest complaining essential quality right asserted inquire whether recourse . necessary State's protection. observed broad statement court having universally true been qualified certain cases courts may, discretion, properly withhold conferred want suitable forum." 12 See Washington General Motors Corp., 109, 113-114, 1396, 1398-1399, 727, 730-731 (1972). 13 circumstances case, persuaded pending state-court Issues here litigated. If appeal Supreme hold unconstitutional, vindicated. If, hand, held constitutional, raised brought way direct 1257(2). 14 denying file, unmindful legal ergy utilities. Mr. Justice Harlan's cautionary advice Ohio Wyandotte Chemicals 401 493, 497, 91 1005, 1009, 256, 262 (1971): 15 "As social system grown more complex, States increasingly become enmeshed multitude disputes persons living borders. Consider, example, frequency nonresidents clash application concerning taxes, motor vehicles, decedents' estates, business torts, government contracts, forth. would, indeed, anomalous were out potential principal settling controversies." 16 denied. 17 So ordered. 18 STEVENS, concurring. 19 Unless some impact rates I believe those standing challenge tax. failed allege impact. Accordingly, apart possible privity my sufficiently affected justify invocation "original exclusive jurisdiction" 1251(a)(1). Since litigate forum, concur Court's disposition motion. except extent they apply Arizona's attempt behalf entity access comments previously made about nonexclusive adequately support order State.* N.M.Stat.Ann. 72-16A-4 (Supp.1975). 72-34-1 Et seq. 72-16A-16.1B Brief Opposition 3. Id., 5-6. App. Opposition. * connection noted quoted 43-44, 9-10, referred complainant's alternative contention might sustained theory controversy between presented. Under exclusive. 1251(b)(3).

Category: 8