Moore v. United States It’s a complex case. It explores the meaning of the tax provisions of the original Constitution and how these powers are affected by the Sixteenth Amendment. On my initial reading, I was more convinced by Justice Thomas’s dissent, which provided a thorough but readable account of that history. But I absolutely believe Justice Thomas’s criticism of the majority. He charged that Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion was intended to address questions that had not yet been raised:
While most acknowledged reasoning from fiscal consequences, they clearly believed that generous application of the directive would prevent future unconstitutional taxes. The majority’s analysis begins with a series of non-existent taxes that the courts do not support today, including a wealth tax. Ant, 8, n. 2. Finally, it narrowly interprets its views, hints at restrictive theories, prejudges future taxes, lays out government concessions, and leaves other issues “for later.” Ante, 22-24. Realizing that supporting rapid transit would cede more ground to Congress, the majority armed itself with directives to say “no” to Congress in the future. But if courts are unwilling to uphold limits on taxing powers in expensive cases, cheap dicta will make little difference.
At the beginning of the opinion, footnote 2 emphasizes no Controversial:
As discussed in Sections 22 through 24 below, our analysis today does not address the unique issues that may arise if (i) Congress attempts to tax an entity and its shareholders or partners on the entity’s undistributed income; (ii) Tax on property, wealth or net worth; (iii) Value added tax.
you saw it! The case has nothing to do with wealth taxes. Take Elizabeth Warren for example! The court repeated these words at the end:
That said, we emphasize that our holdings today are narrow. It is limited to: (i) a tax on the entity’s shareholders, (ii) a tax on undistributed income realized by the entity, and (iii) income attributable to shareholders. In other words, our position applies when Congress treats the entity as a transmitter. . . . Furthermore, as the government explains, other kinds of taxes may of course give rise to different problems. See Tr. Oral arginine. 58–59, 62, 127–128. For example, the government noted in its brief oral argument that a hypothetical undistributed tax on personal property or possessions (e.g., on personal wealth or net worth) may be considered a tax on property rather than a tax on income. See U.S. Brief 19 (distinguish between income tax and wealth or net worth tax because “the object of income tax is economic gain “between two points in time”); Tr. OralArg. 69, 127–128.
Judge Kavanaugh likes to quote transcripts of oral arguments, especially when the deputy attorney general is bogged down by questions. that’s what he did hippocratic medical alliance. When the court cites the transcript, you know these concessions will not appear in the brief.
The subtext of Justice Thomas’s dissent was clear: The court did not want to declare this paltry tax unconstitutional, but it was content to put guardrails in place to ensure that the property tax did not move forward. Taking the initiative to decide a question that does not exist is a hallmark of Kavanaugh’s views. Usually this happens with one of his consent. For example, he Dobbs He decided on the question of the right to travel and in the bridge He decided on the issue of mental health background checks. Indeed, in atomic force microscope He conducted a wide-ranging sweep to address potential conscientious objections. But in Moore, Kavanaugh was designated as one of his most important majority opinions. He brought his pseudo-minimalism to the entire court. The final vote was 7 to 2, but Judge Barrett’s concurrence was closer to Justice Thomas’ concurrence than Justice Alito’s. In fact, this is another case where Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh join the Supreme Court’s progressive wing in a 5-4 split. (Texas v. New Mexico There is another case like this; yes, I have read about the original jurisdiction water rights case.