Hibbs v. Winn
United States Supreme Court
542 U.S. 88 (2004)
- Written by Whitney Kamerzel , JD
Facts
An Arizona statute allowed taxpayers to claim a tax credit of up to $625 for donating money to a school-tuition organization (STO). STOs were nonprofit organizations that provided scholarships to children attending private schools. Nonprofits that provided scholarships to students based on a religion preference qualified as STOs. The tax credits did not cost the taxpayer because the taxpayer could elect to donate up to $625 to an STO or pay the $625 to the Arizona Department of Revenue as taxes. Kathleen Winn (plaintiff), an Arizona taxpayer, sued J. Elliott Hibbs (the Director) (defendant), the director of the Arizona Department of Revenue, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Arizona statute violated the Establishment Clause. Winn did not contest her own tax liability. Instead, Winn asked the district court for injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent the tax credit’s imposition due to its unconstitutionality. The Director moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Tax Injunction Act (TIA) prohibited federal courts from hearing state tax matters. Due to the TIA, the district court dismissed the action. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the TIA barred constitutional challenges to state tax credits in federal court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ginsburg, J.)
Concurrence (Stevens, J.)
Dissent (Kennedy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 781,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
