Court Opinion

ID: 9426411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:17:47.901472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:00.763355
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Stevens,
concurring.
Unless the New Mexico electrical energy tax has some impact on the rates paid by consumers of electricity in Arizona, I do not believe those consumers have standing to challenge that tax. Arizona has failed to allege such impact. Accordingly, apart from its possible privity with the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, in my judgment the State of Arizona is not sufficiently affected by the New Mexico tax to justify its invocation of the “original and exclusive jurisdiction” of this Court conferred by 28 U. S. C. § 1251 (a)(1). Since the Salt River Project is able to litigate in another forum, I concur in the Court’s disposition of the motion. However, except to the extent that they apply to Arizona’s attempt to litigate on behalf of an *799entity which has access to another forum, I do not believe the comments which the Court has previously made about its nonexclusive original jurisdiction adequately support an order denying a State leave to file a complaint against another State.*

In this connection it should be noted that the statement quoted from Massachusetts v. Missouri, 308 U. S. 1, 18-19, referred to the complainant’s alternative contention that jurisdiction might be sustained on the theory that a controversy between Massachusetts and the citizens of another State was presented. Under that theory this Court’s jurisdiction would not have been exclusive. See 28 U. S. C. §1251 (b)(3).