Federal Court Enjoins Enforcement of "Tax Mandate" Barring States Receiving COVID-19 Funds from Cutting Taxes (Updated)

[excalibur]

The injunction is not national but only pertains to Ohio.

This afternoon, a federal district court in Ohio entered a permanent injunction against enforcement of the so-called "Tax Mandate" against the state of Ohio. This mandate bars states that receive COVID-19 relief funding from using such funds, directly or indirectly, to cut taxes. Ohio's challenge raised interesting and challenging federalism and delegation issues, and while the court previously rejected Ohio's bid for a preliminary injunction, it found the criteria for a permanent injunction satisfied here. (For more background, see these posts by Josh Blackman and Ilya Somin.)


The opinion in Ohio v. Yellen by Judge Douglas Cole of the Southern District of Ohio begins:

Through the American Rescue Plan Act ("ARPA"), Congress has exercised its power under the Spending Clause to make nearly $200 billion available to the States to assist with their COVID-19-ravaged state coffers. But that money comes at a price. To receive its share, a State must agree to be bound by certain conditions. In this action, Ohio sues the Secretary of the Treasury (who is charged with enforcing aspects of ARPA) claiming that one of those conditions—which it calls the "Tax Mandate"— exceeds Congress's authority. Ohio argues that this overstep threatens to undermine the federalist system our Constitution enacts.

Before accepting the funds ARPA made available, and thereby subjecting itself to ARPA's conditions, Ohio sought a preliminary injunction to prohibit the Secretary from enforcing the Tax Mandate while this suit is ongoing. The Court denied that request. Now, having opted in to ARPA, Ohio seeks a permanent injunction to prevent the Secretary from enforcing the Tax Mandate against the State.

...

One other quick note is that relief in this case is properly limited to Ohio. This is not a case in which a federal district court judge unnecessarily entered a nationwide injunction.​

Federal Court Enjoins Enforcement of "Tax Mandate" Barring States Receiving COVID-19 Funds from Cutting Taxes (Updated)

This afternoon, a federal district court in Ohio entered a permanent injunction against enforcement of the so-called "Tax Mandate" against…

reason.com

 

[Rambunctious]

Screw you tax hungry dems....states can bypass this nonsense by issuing tax rebates....and they should so they can stick it to Joe and his band of fascists.....

 

[Dragonlady]

Screw you tax hungry dems....states can bypass this nonsense by issuing tax rebates....and they should so they can stick it to Joe and his band of fascists.....

You don’t seem to understand what the law was about. The federal government passed a law that states couldn’t use covid relief money to give tax cuts to their citizens. If your state got covid relief funds, they couldn’t use those funds to cut state or local taxes.

Personally I think this is a good law for the federal government. Instead of Republicans using the money to pay their workers and cut state taxes for their voters, they have to use it for covid relief expenses.

Of course you oppose the law because Biden passed it.

 

[Rambunctious]

Screw you tax hungry dems....states can bypass this nonsense by issuing tax rebates....and they should so they can stick it to Joe and his band of fascists.....

You don’t seem to understand what the law was about. The federal government passed a law that states couldn’t use covid relief money to give tax cuts to their citizens. If your state got covid relief funds, they couldn’t use those funds to cut state or local taxes.

Personally I think this is a good law for the federal government. Instead of Republicans using the money to pay their workers and cut state taxes for their voters, they have to use it for covid relief expenses.

Of course you oppose the law because Biden passed it.

If the "relief" money balances the books the state should give any excess money back to the tax payers....