James v. Dravo Contracting Co.

James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 (1937), is a 5-to-4 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that a state's corporate income tax did not violate the Supremacy Clause (Article Six, Clause 2) of the United States Constitution by taxing the Federal government of the United States. Brauch, p. 14. It was the first time the Court had upheld a tax on the federal government. The decision is considered a landmark in the field of federal tax immunity, underpins modern legal interpretations of the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution, and established the "legal incidence test" for tax cases.CCH Incorporated, p. 60.Drahozal, p. 131-132.

Background Dravo Contracting Company was a general contracting business incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania. It was also licensed to do business in the state of West Virginia. In 1932 and 1933, Dravo signed four contracts with the Federal government of the United States to construct locks and dams on the Kanawha River and locks on the Ohio River.

In 1933, the state of West Virginia passed a new law imposing a 2 percent gross income tax on companies doing business within the state. Subsequently, West Virginia assessed Dravo Contracting $135,761 in taxes and penalties for the income it received on the four contracts it had with the United States government.

Dravo Contracting sued to prevent collection of the tax and penalties. A three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia enjoined the state from collecting the tax and penalties. West Virginia appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on April 26–27, 1937. However, in a surprise announcement, Associate Justice Willis Van Devanter announced on May 19, 1937, that he would retire on June 2 (just 14 days later)."Capital Is Surprised by the Sudden Resignation of Justice Van Devanter," The New York Times, May 19, 1937; Catledge, "A New Deal Foe," The New York Times, May 19, 1937. Van Devanter's retirement dramatically changed the composition of the court. Van Devanter was a staunch conservative, and he was replaced by the liberal Senator Hugo Black.Jackson, p. 1-2. Justice Owen Roberts, who had been highly influenced by the conservative bloc, now began adopting a more independent, middle-of-the-road jurisprudence.Jackson, p. 2. In the following term, the Supreme Court overruled 19 constitutional precedents, and seven legislative precedents—and James v. Dravo Contracting Co. was one of the decisions which overruled precedent.

With Van Devanter now absent from the Court, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes found the Supreme Court deadlocked, and ordered a rehearing on October 12 (with Justice Black participating).Ely, p. 66.

Opinion of the Court Chief Justice Hughes wrote the majority opinion for the Court, in which Associate Justices Louis Brandeis, Harlan F. Stone, Benjamin N. Cardozo, and Hugo Black joined.

Hughes argued that only two questions needed to be answered: 1) Whether West Virginia had jurisdiction over the corporation which would permit it to impose the tax, and 2) Whether the tax impermissibly burdened the operations of the federal government under the Constitution.James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 138.

The jurisdictional issue proved highly complex. First, the Court had to confront how much of the work was done outside the state of West Virginia, and, second, it had to determine whether the work on the river constituted the territory of West Virginia. In determining the latter, the Court had to investigate whether work occurred on the river bed, on federal property adjacent to the river, or on private property leased by the corporation to accommodate its work for the federal government. Relying heavily on Hans Rees' Sons, Inc. v. North Carolina, 283 U.S. 123 (1931), Hughes concluded that the tax must be prorated to cover only that work performed within the borders of West Virginia.James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 138-140.

Whether the company had done work on land owned by the federal government was a critical issue, because in 1930 the Supreme Court had held in Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647 (1930), that private personal property on federal land cannot be taxed by the state.James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 140; Barsh and Henderson, The Road: Indian Tribes and Political Liberty, 1980, p. 195. Citing numerous Court precedents, Hughes noted that title to the river bed lay with the state even though the Constitution granted the federal government the power to use the river bed "for any structure which the interest of navigation, in its judgment, may require."James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 140-141, quoting Lewis Blue Point Oyster Co. v. Briggs, 229 U. S. 82, 88. But what about the land adjacent to the river bed which had been acquired by the federal government? Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution gave Congress exclusive legislation power over such places so long as the state legislature concurred. Hughes, however, noted that the state had not granted exclusive jurisdiction to the federal government.James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 141-142. Clause 17 also required that the construction on "exclusive" land be "needful buildings". Were dams and locks needful buildings? Hughes concluded they were, citing several lower court rulings as well as the West Virginia law allowing the United States to purchase the land.James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 142-144. The defendant had argued that West Virginia had ceded exclusive jurisdiction to the federal government, but in a lengthy review of the legislative language Hughes argued for an interpretation which found that only concurrent jurisdiction had been granted.James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 144-147. As to private property leased by the company in order to carry out its federal contract, Hughes perfunctorily dismissed any challenge to the jurisdiction of the state over this area.James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 149.

Hughes now addressed the second issue: Did the state unconstitutionally tax the federal government? Citing extensive Supreme Court precedent, Hughes asserted that the tax was not laid directly upon the government, its property, or its officers; that the state had not taxed an "instrumentality" of the government (since the company was an independent contractor); the tax was nondiscriminatory; and the tax did not apply directly to the contract issued by the federal government.James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 149-150. Citing several Court precedents, Hughes argued for a close reading of the facts in order to determine the tax's validity:James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 150. The application of the principle which denies validity to such a tax has required the observing of close distinctions in order to maintain the essential freedom of government in performing its functions, without unduly limiting the taxing power which is equally essential to both nation and state under our dual system. There were no "[v]ital considerations" involved in taxing corporate income, nor did the tax affect the "permanent relations" between the federal government and its clients or citizens.James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 153. The Court was not bound to decide how close or distant from the federal government a tax had to be in order to be valid, Hughes argued. The Court had already held, in Thomson v. Pacific Railroad, 76 U.S. 579 (1869), that there was a clear distinction between taxing the government or one of its instrumentalities and taxing a contract employed by the government.James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 153-155. Hughes distinguished Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895); Gillespie v. Oklahoma, 257 U.S. 501 (1922); and Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514 (1926), from the current case, in part because of the nature of the revenue stream being taxed (bond income, for example, rather than a payment under a government contract) and because of the local (rather than interstate) nature of the work done.James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 154-158.

The heart of the taxation argument, Hughes finally concluded, rested on the contention that the business would automatically pass the cost of the tax on to the federal government, thus hindering the government in the provision of goods and services.James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 159. That assumption is false, Hughes asserted, and furthermore the Dravo Contracting had already stipulated that it had not done so in the instant case (nor had it passed on the cost of property, unemployment, or other taxes—even though it knew about them ahead of time).James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 159-160.

But even if the tax had been passed on to the federal government, Hughes concluded that it was incidental. Relying heavily on Trinityfarm Construction Co. v. Grosjean, 291 U.S. 466 (1934), Hughes found the 2 percent gross income tax imposed a burden on the federal government that was inconsequential and remote.James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 160. Even if the state imposed a tax of 25 or even 50 percent, creating an immediate, direct, consequential burden, Congress had the legislative power to ensure that such a tax did not hinder or unduly burden the federal government.James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 160-161.

The majority upheld the validity of the West Virginia tax, and reversed.James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 161.

Dissent Associate Justice James Clark McReynolds dissented, and was joined by Associate Justices George Sutherland, Pierce Butler, and Owen Roberts.

McReynolds was deeply concerned about the willingness of the majority to cast aside stare decisis and overrule precedent. "The judgment seems to me to overrule, sub silentio, a century of precedents, and to leave the application of the rule uncertain and unpredictable."

The dissent also took issue with most of the majority's conclusions. Federal immunity from taxation stemmed not from the common law but from the federal nature of the American system of government, he said.James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 161-162. He admitted that Dravo Contracting was not an instrumentality of the federal government,James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 162-164. but concluded that the tax did burden the government.James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 164-166. Citing Telegraph Company v. Texas, 105 U.S. 460 (1881); Western Union Tel. Co. v. Attorney General, 125 U.S. 530 (1888); and Massachusetts v. Western Union Tel. Co., 141 U.S. 40 (1891), McReynolds noted that none of these cases turned on the unique contractual relationship between the private company and the government (as the majority had distinguished them) but rather on the mere fact that a tax was laid on a corporation engaged in carrying out the duties assigned to it by the federal government under its constitutional mandates.James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 166-167. The Court had long held, he claimed, that taxes (such as an estate tax on an estate that held government bonds) which only indirectly impinged on the relationship between the federal government and a private entity were valid.James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 167-168. But if a tax on the contract itself were permitted, there would be no end to unlimited taxation on the federal government, he warned.James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 168-170.