Under the Radar Blog Archives Select Date… August, 2020 July, 2020 June, 2020 May, 2020 April, 2020 March, 2020 February, 2020 January, 2020 December, 2019 November, 2019 October, 2019 September, 2019

Equally divided decisions are being closely watched in the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia's unexpected death in February. | AP Supreme Court splits 4-4, again, in state sovereignty fight

The shorthanded Supreme Court divided 4-4 again Tuesday on one of two key questions in a case involving the authority of states to impose penalties on other states.

Ruling in a case over a tax dispute involving a man who moved from California to Nevada, the justices said they could not muster a majority to resolve whether to overrule a 1979 Supreme Court precedent that permits state courts in one state to assert jurisdiction over state agencies in another.

As a result, that precedent, Nevada v. Hall, will remain on the books.

Such 4-4 divisions are being closely watched in the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia's unexpected death in February and the ensuing standoff between President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans over whether to replace him now or after a new president takes office. So far, there are no signs leaders in the GOP-led Senate will grant a hearing or vote on Obama's nominee, D.C. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland.

The White House and Democrats have argued that the high court's tie votes deprive the legal system of clear guidance and underscore the need for a ninth justice now. Republicans say the court often works shorthanded due to recusals and a few 4-4 results this year won't have a dramatic impact.

Before Tuesday, the high court had split 4-4 in two cases decided after Scalia's death: a dispute over the application of gender discrimination laws to loan guarantors and a high-stakes fight over the funding of public-sector labor unions.

The court did not reveal how justices voted in those "equally divided" cases, nor did it indicate the vote tally on the issue where the justices split evenly Tuesday.

In the Supreme Court ruling Tuesday in the tax-related fight, Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt, the justices split 6-2 on the other key question: whether a state's courts can effectively treat another state's government agency worse than a similar agency would be treated in the first state. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said a state cannot treat sister states in such a "hostile" fashion. Breyer said states don't have to accede to other states' laws or rules, but can't use a "special" standard that puts those other states at a disadvantage.

Justice Samuel Alito concurred in the result but didn't join Breyer's opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts penned a dissent which was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.