Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:

PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:

Choose Your Subscription:

Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year)

--OR--

Purchase By Course

Have an Account? Login! OR Register and Purchase Now!

Register and Subscribe Now

Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:

PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:

Choose Your Subscription:

Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year)

--OR--

Purchase By Course

Please wait verifying...

Login

Login

Login

Add to Library

Search

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Ward

Brief Fact Summary. Alabama imposes a higher tax rate on out-of-state insurance companies than on domestic insurance companies.

Brief Fact Summary.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. A rational basis to a legitimate government interest must be shown to uphold a state’s discrimination on out-of-state companies. Facts. Out-of-state life insurance companies pay a tax on their gross premiums received from business conducted in Alabama at a tax rate of 3% and out-of-state companies selling other types of insurance pay at a rate of 4%. However, Alabama insurance companies pay only a rate of 1% on all types of insurance premiums. The Appellant, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. and other insurance companies (Appellant), sought to have the higher tax rate declared unconstitutional. The Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari on all claims.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Facts.

Issue. Whether Alabama’s domestic preference tax statute, that taxes out-of-state insurance companies higher rates than domestic insurance companies violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution (Constitution).

Issue.

Held. Justice Lewis Powell (J. Powell). Yes. The Alabama tax on out-of-state insurance companies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution because it imposes a higher tax rate on the out-of-state insurance companies than it does on domestic insurance companies. Alabama’s interest in promoting the business of its domestic insurance companies is not rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. The judgment is therefore reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Held.

Dissent. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (J. O’Connor). “The newly unveiled power of the Equal Protection Clause would come as a surprise to the Congress that passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act and the Court that sustained the Act against constitutional attack. In the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Congress expressly sanctioned such economic parochialism in the context of state regulation and taxation of insurance. The doctrine adopted by the majority threatens the freedom not only of the States but also of the Federal Government to formulate economic policy.” Discussion. This case brings state discrimination of out-of-state commercial interests into the series of equal protection cases requiring review under the rational basis standard of review.

Dissent.

Discussion.

Create New Group

Study Assets: Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

Topic Video

Status:

Course Big Picture Video

Thanks for signing up!

You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter.

Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter

If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here

Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™

As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course.

Please check your email and confirm your registration.

A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email address.

Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam.

Follow Us

Casebriefs LLC © 2024