At the outset, the Court did not regard the equal protection clause as having any bearing on taxation.1386 It soon, however, took jurisdiction of cases assailing specific tax laws under this provision,1387 and in 1890 it cautiously conceded that "clear and hostile discriminations against particular persons and classes, especially such as are of an unusual character, unknown to the practice of our government, might be obnoxious to the constitutional prohibition."1388 But it observed that the equal protection clause "was not intended to compel the States to adopt an iron rule of equal taxation" and propounded some conclusions that remain valid today.1389 In succeeding years the clause has been invoked but sparingly to invalidate state levies. In the field of property taxation, inequality has been condemned only in two classes of cases: (1) discrimination in assessments, and (2) discrimination against foreign corporations. In addition, there are a handful of cases invalidating, because of inequality, state laws imposing income, gross receipts, sales and license taxes.
1384 430 U.S. at 493-94. This had been recognized in Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 241 (1976), and Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266 n.13 (1977).
1385 Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 494, 497-99 (1977).
1386 Davidson v. City of New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 106 (1878).
1387 Philadelphia Fire Ass'n v. New York, 119 U.S. 110 (1886); Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R.R., 118 U.S. 394 (1886).
1388 Bell's Gap R.R. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U.S. 232, 237 (1890) (emphasis supplied).
1389 The State "may, if it chooses, exempt certain classes of property from any taxation at all, such as churches, libraries, and the property of charitable institutions. It may impose different specific taxes upon various trades and professions, and may vary the rates of excise upon various products; it may tax real estate and personal property in a different manner; it may tax visible property only, and not tax securities for payment of money; it may allow deductions for indebtedness, or not allow them. All such regulations, and those of like character, so long as they proceed within reasonable limits and general usage, are within the discretion of the state legislature, or the people of the State in framing their Constitution." 134 U.S. at 237. See Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 U.S. 356 (1973); Kahn v. Shevin, 416 U.S. 351 (1974); and City of Pittsburgh v. Alco Parking Corp., 417 U.S. 369 (1974).
Last modified: June 9, 2014