Southern California Edison Company v. Nevada Department of Taxation

In McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation, this Court held that a taxpayer is entitled to meaningful post-deprivation relief when it has paid taxes found to discriminate against interstate commerce in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. 496 U.S. 18, 31 (1990). In General Motors Corp. v. Tracy, this Court elaborated that the “notion of discrimination” with which the dormant Commerce Clause is concerned “assumes a comparison of substantially similar entities.” 519 U.S. 278, 298 (1997). Twenty years later, the lower courts are sharply divided over what a taxpayer must prove to show that a state law discriminates against interstate commerce in a way that favors one “substantially similar” entity over the other and therefore entitles the disfavored party to a remedy. The question presented is: Whether proof that a tax scheme violates the dormant Commerce Clause by favoring in-state interests over out-of-state interests, and thereby advantages some competitors over others within the same market, is sufficient to entitle the disfavored competitors to a remedy?