Cite as: 502 U. S. 437 (1992)
Thomas, J., dissenting
income-tax revenue.) Under today's opinion, a State that can show any loss in tax revenue—even a de minimis loss, see ante, at 452-453, and n. 11—that can be traced (albeit loosely) to the action of another State can apparently proceed directly to this Court to challenge that action. Perhaps the Court is not concerned about that possibility because of its "discretion" in managing its original docket. But, having extended the original jurisdiction to one State's claim based on its tax-collector status, the Court cannot, in the exercise of discretion, refuse to entertain future disputes based on the same theory. That would be the exercise not of discretion, but of caprice.
I respectfully dissent.
477
Page: Index Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41Last modified: October 4, 2007