Seminole Tribe Continues Challenge to Florida's Utility Taxes
Lawyers for the tribe last week filed a notice of appeal after a federal judge refused to reconsider his decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Seminoles against the Florida Department of Revenue.
May 23, 2018 at 11:10 AM
4 minute read
The Seminole Tribe of Florida has gone to a federal appeals court as part of a long-running legal dispute about whether the tribe should be shielded from state utility taxes on electricity used on reservation land.
Lawyers for the tribe last week filed a notice of appeal after a federal judge refused to reconsider his decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Seminoles against the Florida Department of Revenue.
As is common, the notice of appeal does not detail the arguments that the tribe will make to the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. But U.S. District Judge Robert Scola dismissed the lawsuit because he said it essentially involved the same issues as an earlier case in which the appeals court rejected the tribe's challenge to state utility taxes.
The legal dispute deals with issues such as tribal sovereignty and federal limits on the power of the state to impose taxes on tribal land. In the latest case, the Seminoles are seeking a ruling on the constitutionality of the state taxing electricity used for 14 types of activities on tribal land, including law enforcement, education, health care, agriculture and gaming.
“The defendant [Department of Revenue] imposes and collects the utilities tax on utilities services that the tribe uses to conduct activities on tribal land that it contends to be exclusively and pervasively regulated by federal law and/or to constitute the exercise of its sovereign functions or the 'use' of its tribal land, all in violation of the tribe's federal rights,” attorneys for the tribe wrote in a court document last year.
But Scola pointed to a 2015 ruling by the appeals court in dismissing the latest case. The 2015 ruling said that what is known as a state “gross receipts tax” on electricity is imposed on utility companies and not directly on customers. The tribe had argued that the tax dollars would come from the Seminoles for electricity used on tribal lands. As a result, the tribe argued it should not have to pay the state tax.
Scola wrote that the tribe was seeking the “same basic relief” in the latest case and that it should be precluded from moving forward.
“At their core, the essential facts in both cases are the same: The tribe uses utilities, including electricity, on its tribal land; Florida imposes a utilities tax on the utilities services provided to the tribe,” the judge wrote in dismissing the case.
But the tribe said in the filing last year that the legal issues in the cases are “entirely different,” at least in part because the latest case focuses on the 14 types of activities, rather than a broader question about the utility tax.
“In the prior case, the Eleventh Circuit held that federal law does not generally preempt the utilities tax on all utilities services used on tribal land as a matter of law simply because some of the services are used to conduct activities that are exclusively and pervasively regulated by federal law,” the filing said. “That holding is not an issue in the current case. In the current case, the tribe asked the court to determine whether the federal regulation of any or all of 14 specifically enumerated activities is exclusive and pervasive, such that federal law preempts the utilities tax on utilities services used to conduct those activities. The tribe also asked the court to determine whether any or all of those 14 specifically enumerated activities constitute the exercise of the tribe's sovereign functions or the 'use' of tribal land.”
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDisbarred Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Lawsuit Against Miami-Dade Judges
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readChicago Midsize Firm Will Combine With Miami Boutique To Form Antitrust Powerhouse
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Class Action Filed Against Houston Health Savings Account Firm for Allegedly Confiscating Client Funds
- 2These 2 Lawyers Just Became Florida Judges
- 3'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
- 4Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
- 5Armstrong Teasdale's London Creditors Face Big Losses
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250