Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt

The Court said California's Franchise Tax Board could not be sued in Nevada state court without California's consent. In doing so, it overruled Nevada v. Hall, which had allowed one state to be sued in another state's courts.

The Court decided that a state cannot be sued in another state's courts without its consent and overruled Nevada v. Hall. The prompt does not provide the vote count or opinion lineup.

The decision gives states stronger sovereign immunity (protection from being sued without consent) in other states' courts. For example, a person usually cannot sue another state's tax agency in their home state's courts unless that state agrees.

The Supreme Court has finished this case. The practical result is that Hyatt could not continue this suit against California's tax board in Nevada state court under the rule the Court announced.

The case asked whether Gilbert Hyatt could keep suing California's tax agency in Nevada state court. The Court used that dispute to revisit Nevada v. Hall.

People trying to sue a different state's agency or officials in their own state's courts are most affected. State governments also gain stronger protection from those suits.

The Court finished its work on this docket. The case could no longer go forward in Nevada state court on the theory that California could be sued there without consent.