Sie befinden Sich nicht im Netzwerk der Universität Paderborn. Der Zugriff auf elektronische Ressourcen ist gegebenenfalls nur via VPN oder Shibboleth (DFN-AAI) möglich. mehr Informationen...
Virginia law review, 2023-04, Vol.109 (2), p.427-464
Ort / Verlag
Charlottesville: The Virginia Law Review Association
Erscheinungsjahr
2023
Link zum Volltext
Quelle
EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate
Beschreibungen/Notizen
When a federal employee is charged with a state crime based on conduct that was within their official responsibilities, the US 'Constitution' protects them from prosecution through Supremacy Clause immunity. This immunity was developed by the Supreme Court in a small set of cases from around the turn of the 20th century, but no Supreme Court cases have mentioned it since. Generally, as lower courts have construed it, it is a highly protective standard. This note questions that standard by attempting to re-align Supremacy Clause immunity with another federal immunity that also derives from the Supremacy Clause: federal tax immunity. Until the mid-twentieth century, federal tax immunity cases protected the federal government from almost any state-tax-related burdens, even indirect ones. But in 1937, the Supreme Court abruptly changed course and overruled a century of its previous precedents. As a result, federal tax immunity today has only a shadow of its previous force. In relating these two immunities to each other, this note aims to shine light on Supremacy Clause immunity as a doctrine based on an outdated conception of the role of federal courts in our federalist system. It ties the Court's shift in federal tax immunity to a broader philosophical transformation that also appeared in other doctrines, like those governing the application of the Tenth Amendment and preemption. And it shows that Supremacy Clause immunity as it currently stands is the sour note in an otherwise consistent harmony of federalist relationships.