Court Opinion

ID: 9747562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:21:01.13641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:57:40.244966
License: Public Domain

OPALA, J.,
with whom HARGRAVE, J., joins, dissenting.
I eannot join today's rush to judgment. I would not assume original jurisdiction but relegate the petitioner to her district court remedy.
Facial earmarks do not show conclusively that the levy imposed by the enactment sought to be condemned was in fact a true tax. More is needed. A district court test of the challenged statute's constitutional validity would not be confined to its facial appearance. -It might readily disclose from nonfacial proof the attacked enactment's status as a pure revenue measure subject to judicial condemnation.
Were I writing today for the court, I would decline to assume original jurisdiction without prejudice to a district court contest.