General Motors Corp. v. Tracy, Tax Commissioner of Ohio

Summary

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Souter, held that General Motors had standing to challenge Ohio's taxation of its natural gas purchases but affirmed the judgment rejecting its constitutional claims. Regulated local utilities providing bundled gas and consumer protections were not similarly situated to independent marketers for purposes of the asserted dormant Commerce Clause discrimination claim, notwithstanding their competition for some customers. The possibility that Ohio would deny its exemption to out-of-state utilities was hypothetical, and the distinction between utilities and marketers had a rational basis under the Equal Protection Clause. Justice Scalia concurred separately, without any other Justice joining, reiterating his opposition to expanding dormant Commerce Clause doctrine. Justice Stevens dissented alone, reasoning that utilities and independent marketers should receive equal tax treatment in the competitive market and that speculative effects on captive customers could not justify discrimination.