Court Opinion

ID: 9428241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:23:13.109578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:12.451250
License: Public Domain

Justice Stevens,
with whom Justice Stewart, Justice Marshall, and Justice Powell join, dissenting.
In its discussion of the jurisdictional question presented by this case, the Court correctly assumes that the administration of Cook County’s system of taxing real property has violated respondent’s federal constitutional rights. The question is whether she must be denied equitable relief in a federal court because Illinois affords her “a plain, speedy and efficient remedy.”
Year after year Cook County requires respondent to pay a tax that is three times as great as the amount actually due and then, after a 2-year delay, the county refunds the over-assessment without interest. Because the outcome of this annual ritual is predictable, the taxpayer’s remedy is “plain” *530and because only about 70% of the Nation’s litigation is processed more rapidly, the remedy is also “speedy and efficient.” That is the consequence of the Court’s view that Congress was concerned with nothing more than “minimal procedural criteria” when it enacted the Tax Injunction Act.1 In my view the substance of the State’s remedy must also be considered. If the substance of the remedy is irrelevant, a computerized calculation accompanied by a preprinted rejection slip would qualify as a “plain, speedy and efficient remedy.” Because I am persuaded that a reading of the federal statute that would lead to such an absurd result is manifestly incorrect, and because the Illinois refund remedy cannot fairly be characterized as adequate, I respectfully dissent.
I
If one reads the 1937 Act against its historical background, the conclusion is inescapable that Congress did not intend an inadequate state remedy to oust a federal court of jurisdiction over a taxpayer’s constitutional claim. This Court has often recognized that the statute has its roots in pre-existing equity practice. Moe v. Salish & Kootenai Tribes, 425 U. S. 463, 470 (1976); Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S. 293, 298 (1943). See also Tully v. Griffin, Inc., 429 U. S. 68, 73 (1976).2 Both the statutory and the judicial pred*531ecessors of the Tax Injunction Act emphasized the substance of the state remedy. Section 16 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 provided that “suits in equity shall not be sustained in either of the courts of the United States, in any case where plain, adequate and complete remedy may be had at law.” 1 Stat. 82. In 1932, the Court, while recognizing the force of this rule of equity in suits to enjoin the collection of state taxes, nevertheless indicated the importance of the substance of the state remedy:
“The effect of [Section 16 of the Judiciary Act of 1789], which was but declaratory of the rule in equity, established long before its adoption, is to emphasize the rule and to forbid in terms recourse to the extraordinary remedies of equity where the right asserted may he fully protected at law. See Deweese v. Reinhard, 165 U. S. 386, 389; New York Guaranty Co. v. Memphis Water Co., 107 U. S. 205, 214.
“The reason for this guiding principle is of peculiar force in cases where the suit, like the present one, is brought to enjoin the collection of a state tax in courts of a different, though paramount sovereignty. The scrupulous regard- for the rightful independence of state governments which should at all times actuate the federal courts, and a proper reluctance to interfere by injunction with their fiscal operations, require that such relief should be denied in every case where the asserted federal right may he preserved without it. Whenever the question has been presented, this Court has uniformly held that the mere illegality or unconstitutionality of a state or *532municipal tax is not in itself a ground for equitable relief in the courts of the United States. If the remedy at law is plain, adequate, and complete, the aggrieved party is left to that remedy in the state courts . . . Matthews v. Rodgers, 284 U. S. 521, 525. (Emphasis added.)3
The legislative history of the Tax Injunction Act does not support the notion that Congress intended the Act to alter the standard by eliminating consideration of the substance of the state remedy. The principal sponsor of the Act, Senator Bone, indicated that the statute assured “a full hearing and judicial determination of the controversy.” 81 Cong. Rec. 1416 (1937). See also S. Rep. No. 1035, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1937) (hereinafter 1937 Senate Report). The terms “full hearing” and “judicial determination” surely imply that the remedy may not be an empty ritual. Indeed, Senator Bone emphasized that “the bill does not take away any equitable right of a taxpayer, or deprive him of a day in court.” 81 Cong. Rec. 1416 (1937). See also 1937 Senate Report, at 2.4 The legislative history does not justify the Court’s miserly reading of the statute.
*533The conclusion that the substance of the state remedy must be considered does not rest on the premise that Congress codified intact every “wrinkle” of federal equity practice. Clearly, Congress intended the Tax Injunction Act to restrict the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts. Specifically, Congress wanted to eliminate the abuse of diversity jurisdiction by foreign corporations which were able to frustrate the state taxing process by obtaining injunctions in federal court.5 Moreover, as the Court recognizes, ante, at 522, n. 28, the Act was a response to what was perceived as an unwarranted expansion of federal jurisdiction in suits to enjoin state officers that had developed in the wake of Ex aparte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908).6 The Tax Injunction Act shifted the focus *534of the federal courts from a determination of whether the complainant had an adequate remedy at law to a consideration of whether he had a sufficient remedy — either in equity or at law — in the state courts.7 Although Congress thus gave important protection to state tax administration by cutting back federal equity jurisdiction, there is no reason to believe that Congress intended the expansion of the types of remedies that defeat federal jurisdiction to be accompanied by a drastic relaxation of the scrutiny given to those remedies.8 If Congress did intend such a relaxation, the Tax Injunction Act’s roots in equity are shallow indeed.
This Court has consistently employed the equity adequacy *535standard in construing the Tax Injunction Act. In 1944— only seven years after the Act was passed — the Court stated that the District Court had jurisdiction because of “the uncertainty surrounding the adequacy of the Connecticut remedy.” Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101, 105-106. In 1946, in Hillsborough v. Cromwell, 326 U. S. 620, 625, the Court held that “uncertainty” as to whether the state remedy “affords full protection to the federal rights” was sufficient to demonstrate that the remedy was not adequate.9 And recently, in Tully v. Griffin, Inc., 429 U. S., at 74, the Court indicated that to be sufficient under the statute the remedy must permit the taxpayer “to press its constitutional claims while preserving the right to challenge the amount of the tax due.” 10 Thus our cases support the the*536ory that Congress, rather than making an unexplained and drastic change in the traditional equity standard as to adequacy, assumed that the prior standard would apply.11
This interpretation of the Tax Injunction Act and its history is consistent with the purposes of the Act. By including the “plain, speedy and efficient” exception to the stat*537utory prohibition of federal equity jurisdiction, Congress indicated its clear intent to preserve federal-court jurisdiction unless some state remedy existed. If the federal courts are limited by the Tax Injunction Act to a consideration of the procedural mechanics of the state remedy, and are forbidden to consider the substance of such a remedy, then a state remedy which could not possibly afford any relief or which had the potential for only nominal relief would defeat federal jurisdiction.12 This form-over-substance interpretation renders the exception contained in the Act meaningless, because there would be little purpose in denying a federal remedy to a litigant and sending him to state court to pursue a state remedy — albeit a quick and certain one — that provided no relief.13 A futile state remedy is not significantly different from no remedy at all. Similarly, an inadequate state remedy is not analytically different from a state procedure that provides a remedy as to only a portion of the litigant’s claims. Such an incomplete remedy will not defeat federal jurisdiction. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Redwine, 342 U. S. 299, 303 (1952).14 Therefore, in my view, if the *538state remedy does not provide adequate protection to the federal right, a federal remedy continues to be available.15
II
The inadequacy of the Illinois procedure is much more than a mere failure to pay interest on overassessments. If we take the allegations of the complaint as true, as we must, *539it is apparent that four factors combine to make the Illinois remedial scheme demonstrably unjust. .
First, the tax assessments themselves reveal gross inequities. Not only was respondent’s property admittedly assessed at 3 times its proper assessment value, but other properties in the same class have been assessed at widely divergent rates, ranging from a tiny fraction of actual value to amounts approximately 10 times the true worth.16 The county’s practices apparently give the tax assessor a license to engage in arbitrary and invidious discrimination.
Second, because the overassessment of respondent’s property was repeated year after year, notwithstanding her formal protests and the manifest error in the original assessment, it is apparent that the county’s procedures do not adequately avoid the risk of repetitive error.17 The case might well be different if it revealed an isolated mistake affecting only one *540tax year. But an evaluation of the State’s remedy must involve consideration not only of the fairness of the refund procedure, but also of the taxpayer’s ability to prevent the same mistake from being made year after year.18
Third, although the 2-year period which the county requires to process a refund claim might well be tolerable if its remedy were adequate in all other respects, that time period aggravates each of the other shortcomings.19 Indeed, like the fourth factor — the failure to pay interest — it actually provides the county with an incentive to make overassess-ments, because the county has the cost-free use of the taxpayer’s money while her claim is being processed.
Finally, the failure to pay any interest at all, in combination with the foregoing factors, makes it a virtual certainty that the taxpayer’s ultimate recovery will be worth only a fraction of the actual harm caused by the county’s wrong. Cases decided prior to the Tax Injunction Act indicated that state remedies which did not provide for the payment of interest were not sufficient to defeat federal equity jurisdiction. See Educational Films Corp. v. Ward, 282 U. S. 379, 386, n. 2 (1931); Hopkins v. Southern California Telephone Co., 275 U. S. 393 (1928); Nutt v. Ellerbe, 56 F. 2d 1058, 1062 *541(EDSC 1932) (three-judge court); Procter & Gamble Distributing Co. v. Sherman, 2 F. 2d 165 (SDNY 1924). See also Lockwood, Maw, & Rosenberry, The Use of the Federal Injunction in Constitutional Litigation, 43 Harv. L. Rev. 426, 435 (1930).20 Post-Act cases provide support for the contention that a refund must provide interest in order to defeat federal jurisdiction. United States v. Livingston, 179 F. Supp. 9, 15 (EDSC) (three-judge court), aff’d per curiam, 364 U. S. 281 (1960); United States v. Department of Revenue, 191 F. Supp. 723, 726-727 (ND Ill.), vacated, 368 U. S. 30 (1961).21
*542It is not necessary in this case, however, to decide whether the failure to pay interest alone would render a state remedy inadequate.22 Few remedies fully compensate the victim of official wrongdoing, but surely one would not characterize a remedy that could never exceed one-half or two-thirds of the amount taken as a complete and adequate remedy. Yet if a county , may collect 3 to 10 times the amount of tax that a citizen owes and use the excess for two years without paying any interest, the value of that which is ultimately returned is not complete or adequate compensation for the value of what was unjustly taken.23
*543The Court seems to assume that the nonpayment of interest has no effect on the amount of time that will be spent in processing refund claims.24 In my opinion the Court is quite wrong. When no interest is paid — or when the rate of interest on judgments is significantly lower than the prevailing market rate — the law rewards the dilatory defendant who can postpone the ultimate day of reckoning for as long as possible. The same powerful market forces are at work when a public body is the defendant. Whether or not one agrees with the opinion of the Court of Appeals that the payment of interest is an essential ingredient of any adequate refund remedy, it seems perfectly clear that, given the factors disclosed by this record, the remedy afforded by Illinois is indeed inadequate.25
It follows that federal jurisdiction is not defeated by the Tax Injunction Act and the judgment of the Court of Appeals should therefore be affirmed.

 “On its face, the ‘plain, speedy and efficient remedy’ exception appears to require a state-court remedy that meets certain minimal procedural criteria.” Ante, at 512.
“The procedural mechanism for correction of her tax bill remains the same, however, whether interest is paid or not.” Ante, at 515.
“A procedural interpretation of the phrase ‘a plain, speedy and efficient remedy,’ and the procedural sufficiency of Illinois’ remedy, are supported further by analysis of the phrase’s individual words.” Ante, at 516.
“This Court’s interpretation of the word ‘efficient’ has also stressed procedural elements.” Ante, at 517.

 In Salish & Kootenai Tribes, the Court stated that through enactment of § 1341, Congress “gave explicit sanction to the pre-existing federal *531equity practice.” 425 U. S., at 470. In Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., the Court described the restraints imposed on federal equity jurisdiction prior to the passage of the Tax Injunction Act and noted that “Congress recognized and gave sanction to this practice of federal equity courts by the [Tax Injunction] Act.” 319 U. S., at 298. In Tully v. Griffin, Inc., the Court again noted that “the statute has its roots in equity practice ....” 429 U. S., at 73.

 In Educational Films Corp. v. Ward, 282 U. S. 379 (1931), the Court indicated that the substance of the remedy was important by stating that the absence of interest on a refund rendered a state remedy inadequate. Id., at 386, n. 2. See also Hopkins v. Southern California Telephone Co., 275 U. S. 393 (1928).

 Although Congress omitted the word “adequate” from its description of a state remedy that would defeat federal jurisdiction, the omission may have been an oversight, or the inclusion of such a word may well have been considered unnecessary. Black’s Law Dictionary 1163 (5th ed. 1979) defines “remedy” as “[t]he means by which a right is enforced or the violation of a right is prevented, redressed, or compensated.” A court cannot insure that the federal rights are “enforced,” or the violation of such rights “prevented, redressed, or compensated,” without a consideration of the substance of the state remedy. Moreover, the word “efficient,” which was defined as “characterized by effective activity,” may have been *533intended to require an effective remedy. See Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language 819 (2d ed. 1934).

 The 1937 Senate Report, at 1-2, stated:
“If those to whom the Federal courts are open may secure injunctive relief against the collection of taxes, the highly unfair picture is presented of the citizen of the State being required to pay first and then litigate, while those privileged to sue in the Federal courts need only pay what they choose and withhold the balance during the period of litigation.
“The existing practice of the Federal courts in entertaining tax-injunction suits against State officers makes it possible for foreign corporations doing business in such States to withhold from them and their governmental subdivisions, taxes in such vast amounts and for such long periods of time as to seriously disrupt State and county finances. The pressing needs of these States for this tax money is so great that in many instances they have been compelled to compromise these suits, as a result of which substantial portions of the tax have been lost to the States without a judicial examination into the real merits of the controversy.”
The Johnson Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1342, upon which the Tax Injunction Act was modeled, and its legislative history, reflect the same concern. The Johnson Act specifically deprived district courts of jurisdiction to enjoin the operation of, or compliance with, public utility rates when the jurisdiction of the federal court was based solely on diversity. Ibid.; see S. Rep. No. 701, 72d Cong., 1st Sess., 7-13 (1932).

 See P. Bator, P. Mishkin, D. Shapiro, & H. Wechsler, Hart & Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System 978 (2d ed. 1973) (hereinafter *534Bator, Mishkin, Shapiro, & Weehsler); C. Wright, Federal Courts 215-217 (3d ed. 1976) (hereinafter Wright).

 Under prior federal equity practice, a state equitable remedy would not defeat the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts. Bohler v. Callaway, 267 U. S. 479, 486-488 (1925) (state equitable remedy to enjoin collection of excessive assessment would not defeat federal equity jurisdiction). See Stratton v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 284 U. S. 530, 533-534 (1932). Such an equitable remedy, however, would bar federal jurisdiction under the Act. See Garrett v. Bamford, 538 F. 2d 63, 68 (CA3), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 977 (1976); Horn v. O’Cheskey, 378 F. Supp. 1280 (NM 1974). As originally enacted, the statute deprived the district courts of jurisdiction whenever a “plain, speedy, and efficient remedy may be had at law or in equity in the courts of such State.” 50 St-at. 738 (emphasis added). The phrase “at law or in equity” was dropped as “unnecessary” in the 1948 revision of the statute. H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A120 (1947). See 17 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4237, p. 420 (1978) (hereinafter Wright, Miller, & Cooper).

 The Court is correct when it asserts that the Act was not intended to permit the federal courts to entertain suits in all cases cognizable by them prior to the Act. Given the restrictions on equity jurisdiction clearly intended by Congress, the Act was not redundant of § 16 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 82. Thus the fact that the broader jurisdiction permitted by the Suits in Equity Act existed for 10 years after the passage of the Tax Injunction Act, see ante, at 526-527, does not indicate that Congress did not intend the prior equity standard to apply to a determination of the adequacy of state remedies under the Tax Injunction Act.

 The Court correctly notes that the Cromwell Court held that because it was unclear whether the New Jersey courts would follow the constitutional rule, established by this Court in Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, 260 U. S. 441, 445-447 (1923), that a State may not require the party suffering discrimination to seek an upward revision of the taxes of other members of the class, there was such “uncertainty surrounding the adequacy of the state remedy as to justify the District Court in retaining jurisdiction of the cause.” 326 U. S., at 626. Although the Court reasons that this “uncertainty” demonstrates that the remedy was not procedurally “plain,” ante, at 516-517, the Court fails to note that the Cromwell Court clearly indicated that even if the remedy were a certain one, it would be insufficient to defeat federal jurisdiction. After noting that “a long line” of New Jersey decisions “held that a taxpayer who has been singled out for discriminatory taxation may not obtain equalization by reduction of his own assessment,” and that “[h~|is remedy is restricted to proceedings against other members of his class for the purpose of having their taxes increased,” the Court stated that “[o]n the basis of that rule it is plain that the state remedy is not adequate to protect respondent’s rights under the federal Constitution.” 326 U. S., at 624. Thus the Court was cleaTlv concerned about the substance of the state remedy.

 The Court interprets this language to convey a procedural requirement. The “right to challenge the amount of the tax due,” however, arguably would not be satisfied by a remedy that did not provide complete protection to the federal right. Moreover, in Tully the state remedy, a *536declaratory judgment challenging the imposition of the tax accompanied by a preliminary injunction tolling the time period within which the taxpayer could challenge the amount of the assessment, if such a remedy existed, was clearly substantively adequate.

 Our decisions construing the Tax Injunction Act noted that the Act was a recognition of the prior equity practice. Tully v. Griffin, Inc., 429 U. S. 68, 73 (1976); Moe v. Salish & Kootenai Tribes, 425 U. S. 463, 470 (1976); Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S. 293, 298 (1943). Although the Court states that commentators agree that the issue of whether the Tax Injunction Act was a confirmation of prior equity practice has never been “definitively resolved,” ante, at 525, n. 32, most commentators do agree that this Court has used the equitable and statutory standards interchangeably. See Bator, Mishkin, Shapiro, & Wechsler 979 (“the three major Supreme Court opinions seem to use the terms interchangeably”); Wright 216-217 (“Although it can be argued that the remedy need not be ‘adequate’ in the traditional equity sense in order to defeat federal jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has regarded 'plain, speedy and efficient’ as meaning the same thing as ‘adequate’ ” (footnote omitted)); Wright, Miller, & Cooper § 4237, pp. 420-421 (“plain, speedy and efficient” remedy “has been equated with ‘adequate’ in describing the remedy”); Berry, A Federal Forum for Broad Constitutional Deprivation by Property Tax Assessment, 65 Calif. L. Rev. 828, 833-834 (1977) (Supreme Court decisions “implied a continuing concern over the fairness of state proceedings and the narrowness of state equitable relief. Since 1937, substitution of the efficiency language for adequacy language ‘has generally been ignored’ ”); Note, Federal Court Interference with the Assessment and Collection of State Taxes, 59 Harv. L. Rev. 780, 784r-785 (1946) (arguing that “Congress intended to permit jurisdiction only where there were procedural limitations in the state remedy and not where substantive defects of law were alleged,” but noting that “[tjhere has been a definite failure to distinguish between inadequacy of remedy created by uncertainty as to the substantive outcome of any suit, and the fact that the taxpayer has available a complete judicial means of litigating the controversy in the state courts . . .”).

 For example, the Court notes that the “procedural mechanism” for the recovery of respondent’s tax bill would be the same whether interest is paid or not. Ante, at 515. The procedural mechanism would also be the same if the state statute prohibited any refund in excess of 10% of the amount claimed.

 The purpose of insuring that a state remedy meets minimal procedural standards is to prevent States from erecting procedural barriers that would make the taxpayer’s recovery of a refund so difficult as to be worthless. See, e. g., Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Redwine, 342 U. S. 299, 303 (1952) (remedy requiring taxpayer to bring over 300 suits in 14 counties inadequate). If the state remedy is substantively inadequate, however, the purpose underlying the requirement of a procedurally adequate remedy disappears.

 In Redwine, the plaintiff railroad sought to enjoin collection of ad valorem taxes assessed by the State and every county, school district, and municipality through which the railroad’s lines ran. The State argued that a suit for refund after payment of taxes, a remedy available only with respect to taxes payable to the State, would be a “plain, speedy and *538efficient” remedy under the statute. Noting that such a. refund would apply to less than 15% of the total taxes in controversy, the Court held that the remedy would not defeat federal jurisdiction and stated that “[a]n adequate remedy as to only a portion of the taxes in controversy does not deprive the federal court of jurisdiction over the entire controversy.” Id., at 303, and n. 11.

 Lower federal courts have recognized that the statute codified the prior adequacy standard. See Garrett v. Bamford, 538 F. 2d, at 67 ("the decisions indicate that 'plain, speedy and efficient’ means no more than the prior equity standard of 'adequacy’ ”); Dillon v. Montana, 634 F. 2d 463, 466-467 (CA9 1980) (recognizing that Congress gave explicit sanction to pre-existing equity practice and stating that "[t]he remedial certainty contemplated by § 1341 is that a state forum be empowered to consider claims that a tax is unlawful and to issue adequate relief”); United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Whitman, 595 F. 2d 323, 325 (CA5 1979) (“Since the 1937 statute was intended as a codification of judicial practice prior to its passage, both the Supreme Court and this court have found it useful to draw on the background of pre-1937 decisions in interpreting the purposes and policies which underlie it”); Charles R. Shepherd, Inc. v. Monaghan, 256 F. 2d 882, 884 (CA5 1958) (federal court has no jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act if “an adequate remedy is provided for the recovery back if improperly collected”); see also Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 631 F. 2d 426 (CA6 1980) (state remedy limited to seeking upward revision of other taxpayers’ assessments did not bar federal-court jurisdiction under § 1341), cert.. denied, post, p. 959; Alnoa G. Corp. v. City of Houston, 563 F. 2d 769, 772 (CA5 1977) (if potential opportunities for abuse in the form of arbitrary city council decisions reassessing taxpayer’s property became reality, “the adequacy of the state remedy might then be seriously questioned”), cert. denied, 435 U. S. 970 (1978); Helmsley v. City of Detroit, 320 F. 2d 476, 481 (CA6 1963) (remedy was “adequate and complete”); Bland v. McHann, 463 F. 2d 21, 26-27 (CA5 1972), cert. denied, 410 U. S. 966 (1973). Cf. Clement, Discrimination in Real Property Assessment: A Litigation Strategy for Pennsylvania, 36 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 285, 289 (1974).

 According to a study conducted by the Illinois Department of Public Affairs and cited in respondent’s complaint, these assessments ranged from 3% of actual value to 973% of actual value. See ante, at 507; App. 7. The Court assumes, ante, at 528, that the amount of respondent’s refund claim is typical, and the Court notes that such disputed assessments may provide the county with an additional $113 million each year. But federal-court litigation could encumber this entire amount only if it is assumed that all refund claimants could make a showing of inequitable assessment sufficient to obtain a federal-court injunction. This assumption highlights an ironic contrast between the Court’s indifference to the financial impact of the gross overassessments on the individual taxpayer, who has no lawful method of preventing such overassessments, and the Court’s concern with a temporary delay in the collection of county revenues that the State could easily avoid by providing an adequate remedy.

 In order to conclude that respondent is powerless to prevent repetition of erroneous assessments, it is not necessary to consider respondent’s assertion, not made part of the record, that the 1978 and 1979 assessments indicate that the discrimination against her has continued. Brief for Respondent 2. The four consecutive overassessments, from 1974 through 1977, sufficiently demonstrate the repetitive nature of the injury to respondent. See App. 8.

 In Garrett v. Bamford, supra, at 71-72, the court held that because adjustment of the taxpayer’s taxes in one year would not prevent repetition of disparate assessments in succeeding years, and because the discriminatory assessment pattern was allegedly systematic and intentional, the lack of potential in futuro relief was a factor contributing to the inadequacy of the state remedy.

 The Court reasons that the fact that respondent had to bring repetitive suits to challenge the repeated overassessments is at least in part attributable to the fact that the Board of Appeals, in considering respondent’s appeals from the overassessments, did not have the benefit of the Circuit Court judgment, rendered in 1977, holding that the assessor had overassessed respondent’s property and awarding her a refund. Ante, at 518, n. 22. That fact, however, merely underscores the cumulative effect of the delay and the taxpayer’s inability to avoid repeated mistakes. The delay of the judicial determination, in addition to postponing vindication of the taxpayer’s rights, fosters repetition of the error.

 The Court notes that the Court in two pre-Act cases, Matthews v. Rodgers, 284 U. S. 521, 525 (1932), and Stratton v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 284 U. S. 530 (1932), without expressly reaching the issue, upheld the adequacy of state remedies that “apparently” did not include interest. Ante, at 524, n. 31. In light of the fact, however, that none of the parties argued that the failure to pay interest rendered the remedy inadequate, and the fact that the Court did not address the failure to pay interest in either case, such cases are scant authority for the proposition that the prior federal equity cases are a “two-edged sword.” See Brief for Appellants, Brief for Appellants on Reargument, Brief for Appellees, and Supplemental Brief for Appellees on Reargument in Matthews v. Rodgers, O. T. 1931, No. 84; Supplemental Brief for Appellant, Additional Brief for Appellees, Memoranda of Authority on Equity Judisdiction for Appellees, and Pet. for Rehearing in Stratton v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., O. T. 1931, No. 178.

 In Livingston, the three-judge court stated:
“It is well-settled that a right to recover taxes illegally collected is not an adequate remedy if it does not include the right to recover interest at a reasonable rate for the period during which the taxpayer’s money is withheld. Even if existence of the right be merely cast in substantial doubt, the remedy is not plain or adequate.
“South Carolina may allow interest upon refunds of taxes or not as she chooses. If she does not make clear the existence of the right to recover such interest, however, she necessarily opens the door to equitable relief to taxpayers and forecloses a remission of the parties to the legal remedy provided by her statutes.” 179 F. Supp., at 15. (Footnote omitted.)
In United States v. Department of Revenue, the court held that a state *542requirement that a bond be posted which did not provide for recoupment of the cost of the bond was analogous to the failure to award interest on refunds and therefore was not an adequate state remedy. See also Wright, Miller, & Cooper § 4237, p. 423.

 In some eases, failure to pay interest would certainly not be enough to render a remedy inadequate. If the amount of the interest were small, either because the amount of the refund was small or the time necessary to obtain the refund was short, then the failure to pay interest would not be a substantial defect in the remedy. See Group Assisting Sewer Proposal-Ansonia v. City of Ansonia, 448 F. Supp. 45, 47 (Conn. 1978); Abernathy v. Carpenter, 208 F. Supp. 793, 796-797 (WD Mo. 1962), aff’d per curiam, 373 U. S. 241 (1963). See also Comment, 93 Harv. L. Rev. 1016, 1023-1024 (1980).

 In Procter & Gamble Distributing Co. v. Sherman, 2 F. 2d 165 (SDNY 1924), Judge Learned Hand held that the uncertainty of the availability of a refund rendered a remedy inadequate. He further noted:
“But quite independently of such doubts, the relief is inadequate because of the express refusal to allow interest. . . . While I have been referred to no decision on the point, it seems to me plain that it is not an adequate remedy, after taking away a man’s money as a condition of allowing him to contest his tax, merely to hand it back, when, no matter how long after, he establishes that he ought never to have been required to pay at all. Whatever may have been our archaic notions about interest, in modern financial communities a dollar to-day is worth more than a doEar next year, and to ignore the interval as immaterial is to contradict well-settled beliefs about value. The present use of my money is itself a thing of value, and, if I get no compensation for its loss, my remedy does not altogether right my wrong.” Id., at 166.

 “The payment of interest might make the wait more tolerable, but it would not affect the amount of time necessary to adjudicate respondent’s federal claims.” Ante, at 520-521.

 Because I would rely on the cumulative effect of the four factors discussed, and not on the failure to pay interest alone, to hold that the state remedy is inadequate, there is no need to respond to the Court’s point, ante, at 523, that Congress must have been aware that many States did not pay interest on tax refunds. Congress may have been aware that some States did not pay interest on refunds and may have even sanctioned the practice, but there is no reason to believe that Congress implicitly approved the inadequate remedy provided by Cook County in this case.