The Supreme Court recently denied Arizona’s motion for leave in Arizona v. California, which sought to challenge California’s extraterritorial taxation and seizures of out-of-state funds as unconstitutional. Specifically, California imposed a “doing business” tax on Arizona entities that conduct no actual business in California and have no connection to the state except for purely passive investments in California companies. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented, and explained that the Court’s policy of treating its jurisdiction over suits between states as discretionary was “not only textually suspect, but also inequitable.”The Court’s action raises important questions about the nature of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction and the Court’s failure to provide any detailed rationale of how its jurisdiction—which is “original and exclusive”—is also discretionary. Listen to Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich talk about how this decision could impact future original actions, including pending actions by Montana and Wyoming against Washington and Texas against California.Featuring: -- Hon. Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General

Ver todos los episodios