A Curious Choice: Hibbs v. Winn as a Case Study of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s Balancing Jurisprudence

Note

A CURIOUS CHOICE: Hibbs v. Winn as a Case Study of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s Balancing Jurisprudence

C. Lincoln Combst

INTRODUCTION

At first glance, the United States Supreme Court opinion in Hibbs v. Winn1 is a seemingly innocuous discussion of a highly technical issue: the statutory interpretation and legislative history of the Tax Injunction Act.2 A closer look, however, reveals that the case subtly demonstrates the deep ideological divisions of the Rehnquist Court, and gives some insight into arguably the Court’s most crucial decisionmaker. As is typical of many controversial decisions of the current Court, the Court split 5-4 along familiar lines with the liberal justices on one side and the conservative wing of the Court on the other.3 And, as is not unusual during her time on the Court,4 Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is in the five-Justice majority.5 What

t J.D. Candidate, May 2006, Arizona State University College of Law; B.A., University of California at San Diego, 1994; Master of Sports Administration. Ohio University, 1997. The author would like to thank Arizona Supreme Court Justice and The College of Law at Arizona State University Adjunct Professor of Law Andrew Hurwitz for his guidance and insight in selecting this topic and writing this article.

I. 124 S. Ct. 2276 (2004).

2. 28 u.s.c. § 1341 (2004).

See, e.g., Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000); United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995); Planned Parenthood ofS.E. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

NANCY