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
© 2025 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 AllLatest Boutique Combination in Florida Continues Am Law 200 Merger Activity
3 minute readMiami-Dade Litigation Over $1.7 Million Brazilian Sugar Deal Faces Turning Point
3 minute readMeta agrees to pay $25 million to settle lawsuit from Trump after Jan. 6 suspension
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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