The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Monday, February 24, 1997
Decision: Monday, June 2, 1997
Issues: Federalism, Federal Preemption of State Regulation

Advocates

Donato Caruso (Argued the cause for the respondents)
Edwin S. Kneedler (Department of Justice, on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioners)
M. Patricia Smith (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

New York's Health Facility Assessment (HFA) imposes a tax on gross receipts for patient services at diagnostic and treatment centers. The NYSA ILA Medical and Clinical Services Fund, which administers a plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), owns and operates New York treatment centers for longshore workers, retirees and their dependents. The Fund's trustees discontinued paying the New York tax and filed to enjoin the state from making future assessments and to obtain a refund. Lawyers for the Fund alleged that the HFA is preempted by the ERISA, as it applies to hospitals run by it. The District Court ruled that the HFA is not preempted because it is a tax of general application having only an incidental impact on benefit plans. In reversing, the Court of Appeals found that the HFA directly reduces the amount of Fund assets that would otherwise be available to provide plan members with benefits, and could cause the plan to limit its benefits or to charge plan members higher fees; therefore, the HFA was preempted by the ERISA.

Question

Does the Employee Retirement Income Security Act preclude New York's Health Facility Assessment from imposing a gross-receipts tax on the income of medical centers operated by ERISA funds?

Conclusion

No. In a 7-2 decision, authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act does not preclude New York from imposing a gross receipts tax on ERISA funded medical centers. Justice Stevens wrote, "Any state tax, or other law, that increases the cost of providing benefits to covered employees" will affect the benefit plan, "but that simply cannot mean that every state law with such an effect is pre-empted.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 7 votes for DeBuono, 0 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Employee Retirement Income Security
Wrote the majority opinion
Stevens
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Wrote a jurisdictional dissent
Scalia
Jurisdictional dissent, joined Scalia's dissent
Thomas
Full Opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, DeBuono v. NYSA-ILA Med. and Clin. Service Fund, 520 U.S. 806 (1997),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1594/>
(last visited ).