Dawson v. Steager
The court held that a state violates the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine when it treats retired state employees more favorably than retired federal employees and no significant differences between the two classes justify the differential treatment.
139 S. Ct. 698 · No. 17-419 · 2018 term · Roberts Court
Decided Feb 20, 2019 · argued Dec 3, 2018
Federalism · National supremacy: state tax
Majority opinion: Neil Gorsuch
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Reversed and remanded. Dawson won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the West Virginia Supreme Court and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Dawson was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Dawson v. Steager, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a state violates the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine when it treats retired state employees more favorably than retired federal employees and no significant differences between the two classes justify the differential treatment.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2018 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Neil GorsuchWrote the majority opinion
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Brett KavanaughJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- DawsonTaxpayer or executor of taxpayer's estate, federal only
- Respondent
- SteagerState commission, board, committee, or authority (West Virginia)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- State courts were unsure how to apply the law
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- 4 U.S.C. 111
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Feb 20, 2019DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: reversed and remanded. Dawson won.
- Dec 3, 2018ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). State courts were unsure how to apply the law.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the West Virginia Supreme Court: reversed and remanded.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the West Virginia trial court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
12 other argued cases since 1946 on national supremacy: state tax, newest first.
- J. Elliott Hibbs, Director, Arizona Department of Revenue v. Kathleen M. Winn et al.542 U.S. 88Jun 14, 2004 · 542 U.S. 88Federalism5–45–4 band
- Arizona Department of Revenue v. Blaze Construction Company, Inc.526 U.S. 32Mar 2, 1999 · 526 U.S. 32Federalism9–0Unanimous band
- James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia et al.501 U.S. 529Jun 20, 1991 · 501 U.S. 529Federalism6–36–3 band
- Davis v. Michigan Department of the Treasury489 U.S. 803Mar 28, 1989 · 489 U.S. 803Federalism8–18–1 band
- United States Steel Corp. et al. v. Multistate Tax Commission et al.434 U.S. 452Feb 21, 1978 · 434 U.S. 452Federalism7–27–2 band
- United States et al. v. County of Fresno429 U.S. 452Jan 25, 1977 · 429 U.S. 452Federalism8–18–1 band
- United States v. State Tax Commission of Mississippi et al.412 U.S. 363Jun 4, 1973 · 412 U.S. 363Federalism7–27–2 band
- Sullivan, Tax Commissioner of Connecticut, et al. v. United States et al.395 U.S. 169May 26, 1969 · 395 U.S. 169Federalism8–0Unanimous band
- Department of Revenue v. James B. Beam Distilling Co.377 U.S. 341Jun 1, 1964 · 377 U.S. 341Federalism6–27–2 band
- Humble Pipe Line Co. v. Waggonner, Sheriff376 U.S. 369Mar 23, 1964 · 376 U.S. 369Federalism9–0Unanimous band
- Michigan National Bank et al. v. Michigan et al.365 U.S. 467Mar 6, 1961 · 365 U.S. 467Federalism6–27–2 band
- Phillips Chemical Co. v. Dumas Independent School District361 U.S. 376Feb 23, 1960 · 361 U.S. 376Federalism9–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.