Court Opinion

ID: 9432517
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:35:37.825624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:34.310255
License: Public Domain

Justice Stevens,
with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
While I agree with the Court’s explanation of why this case is controlled by Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U. S. 803 (1989), I remain convinced that that case seri*606ously misapplied the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity. A state tax burden that is shared equally, by federal retirees and the vast majority of the State’s citizens does not discriminate against those retirees. See id., at 823-824 (Stevens, J., dissenting). The Federal Government has a legitimate interest in protecting its employees from disparate treatment, but federal judges should not be able to claim a tax exemption simply because a State decides to give such a benefit to the members of its judiciary instead of raising their salaries. I write separately to make this point because what I regard as this Court’s perverse application of the nondiscrimination principle is subject to review and correction by Congress. See Prudential Insurance Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U. S. 408 (1946).