Legal Document

455 U.S. 245 102 Supreme Court Reporter 1047 71 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 120 James or Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 TULLY, Jr., et al.v.MOBIL OIL CORPORATION al. Number 81-96. Feb. 22, 1982. PER CURIAM. 1 In June 1980, New York State established a two percent tax on the gross receipts of oil companies limited to their revenues derived from activities within State. N.Y. Tax Law § 182, ch. 272, 182 (McKinney Supp. 1980). Desiring that actually be borne by companies, its intended objects, rather than consumers, Legislature prohibited passing cost in prices products sold York. Ibid. The passthrough prohibition was sufficiently vital law provided if "adjudged any court competent jurisdiction invalid and after exhaustion all further judicial review" would cease exist 10th day thereafter. Ch. 12(a). All liabilities accrued day, however, remain full force effect. It also self-destruct 10 days "issues order, judgment, injunction stay prohibiting" enforcement antipassthrough provision. 12(b). 2 appellees are subject who instituted suit enjoin provision, claiming it conflict with therefore pre-empted federal price control authority under Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act (EPAA), 15 Code KF62 751 seq. District agreed position enjoined 499 F.Supp. 888 (ND NY Appeals for Second Circuit held appellate consideration preemption issue matter Temporary (Em.App.). 639 Federal Reporter, 2nd 912, cert. denied sub nom. Tully versus England Corp., 452 967, 101 3123, 69 981 (1981). That court, turn, affirmed Court's decision, but noted statute expire own terms September 1981, expiration "will signal end concern this area." 653 497, 502 3 officials then appealed TECA's decision Court. We now vacate judgment remand case TECA reconsideration light authority.1 4 normal rule civil is we judge accordance as exists at time our decision. Kremens Bartley, 431 119, 129, 97 1709, 1715, 52 184 (1977); Fusari Steinberg, 419 379, 387, 95 533, 538, 42 521 (1975). date has come gone; only barrier provision no longer exists. However, entered did not terminate October 1, acknowledged area. Thus, present form declaration invalidity accompanying against enforcing have current validity must set aside.2 5 Ordinarily, determination t so changed eliminate between state conclude dispute. case, both parties insist an important controversy continues over appellees' legal pass through consumers taxes were paid prior 1. They suggest itself question because "self-destruct" provisions statute. These matters relevant litigation because, being predicated respect period they may constitute "remaining live issues [which] supply constitutional requirement controversy." Powell McCormack, 395 486, 89 1944, 1951, 23 491 (1969). Now operation blocked conflicting law, arises degree which resolution these secondary will turn earlier finding pre-emption, even correct. Is there, example, interest prevent 1? 6 express opinion ultimate merit contentions. leave TECA, intimately familiar intricacies energy regulation, task deciding first instance what effect, any, collateral matters.3 7 Regardless decide those issues, clear appropriately framed review. Therefore, vacated, remanded EPAA. 8 So ordered. 9 Justice BRENNAN oral argument. STEVENS, dissenting. 11 Act, seq., petroleum products. Supp.1980) "clearly measure"1 could enforced while effective. recognized, bar 30, import date.2 12 appeal Court, Commission does ask us consider concerning meaning enforceability laws during authority. Such questions business presented litigation. Rather, presents whether then-existing prevented fixing economic burden imposed upon sell products.3 correctly answered question. Since subsequent bearing question, & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions simply affirm judgment.4 find proper 28 1254(2). argue review decisions writ certiorari. point jurisdictional incorporated provide "[w]ithin thirty entry order [TECA], petition certiorari filed States, thereupon shall same manner appeals [28 1254]." 211(g) Economic Stabilization 1970 (ESA), 84 Statutes-at-Large 800, note following 1904, reference EPAA, 754(a). There indication obviously directed expediting review, substitute 1254(2)'s general grant "courts appeals" invalidating statutes grounds. Congress granted "the powers circuit conferred it." ESA 211(b)(1). logical exercise such To sure, contained EPAA states "such affect action pending proceedings, administrative, civil, criminal, finally determined date, nor criminal proceeding, pending, based act committed liability incurred date." 760g. Whatever saving clause other aspects surely cannot mean that, despite preempting should permanently One statute, see n. 2, supra, applies here read concerned administrative proceedings brought enforce otherwise adjudicate "The anti-passthrough clearly measure State's police power. stated purpose 'further increases consumers,' 'fueling inflation prohibiting state.' As another context, '[t]his objective certainly taxing power affecting structure products.' Mobil Oil Corporation Tully, supra [639 912] 918. agree observation." 501 (Em.App.1981). "Any attempt charged pursuant regulation barred scheme. EPCA [Energy Policy Conservation added 760g EPAA] expires 1981. meantime, goals impact OPEC determinations regarding production viable. At decontrol been President best method achieve enunciated goal. attack instrument objectives program. See Ray Atlantic Richfield, 435 151, 178, 98 988, 1004, 55 179 (1978). "When Until regulations." Id., 502. three statement follows: "1. Does Injunction 1341, deprive district courts when effect assessment, levy, collection tax? "2. Did Energy 1975 revocation, terms, Department regulations had maximum allowable certain products, prohibit products? "3. regulations, effective, exercising power?" Juris. Statement ii. am satisfied 917-918, collecting tax; merely Unless construed expired will, course, modification, Commission's motion, objection properly invoked. ante, 246-247, n.1.

Classification Label: 8