Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

General Motors Corp. v. Tracy

Supreme Court of the United States · 1997 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawDormant Commerce ClauseEqual ProtectionState Taxationnatural gassales tax exemptionuse taxlocal distribution companies

Facts

Ohio imposed general sales and use taxes on natural gas purchases except for sales by regulated public utilities that qualified as statutory "natural gas compan[ies]," a category that undisputedly included Ohio local distribution companies but, under Ohio law, excluded independent marketers and producers. During the relevant period, GMC bought virtually all of the natural gas for its Ohio plants from out-of-state marketers rather than LDCs, and Ohio assessed use tax on those purchases. Ohio regulated LDCs extensively, including their rates, service obligations, nondiscrimination duties, and obligations to serve the public, while marketers sold unbundled gas and did not provide the same regulated package of protections. GMC argued that taxing marketer sales while exempting LDC sales violated the Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause.

Issue

Does Ohio violate the dormant Commerce Clause or the Equal Protection Clause by exempting sales of natural gas by regulated local distribution companies from sales and use taxes while taxing purchases from independent marketers? Also, does GMC have standing to raise the Commerce Clause challenge even though it is a customer rather than a seller?

Rule

A dormant Commerce Clause claim of facial discrimination assumes a comparison of substantially similar entities; where allegedly favored and disfavored sellers provide different products and serve materially different markets, they are not similarly situated for that purpose. The Clause protects competition in markets, not taxpayers as such, and state tax classifications survive Equal Protection review if they have a rational basis.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Prairie Forge Steel operates a plant in Toledo, Ohio and buys nearly all of its industrial steam from out-of-state energy marketers. Ohio imposes a use tax on those purchases, while exempting sales by regulated in-state district heating utilities. Prairie Forge, not the sellers, is legally liable for the use tax and alleges the tax makes its purchases more expensive.

Does Prairie Forge have standing to bring a dormant Commerce Clause challenge to the tax scheme?

Explanation. A customer liable for the challenged tax has Article III standing when it alleges economic injury from paying more under the allegedly unconstitutional scheme. The Court emphasized that injury from discrimination against interstate commerce is not limited to the disfavored sellers; customers who must pay the tax and thereby bear higher costs may sue. The dormant Commerce Clause protects market participants, and a taxpayer-customer alleging direct financial harm is sufficiently injured.