No. _________ In the Supreme Court of the United States ─────────────♦───────────── ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND VERNON BARNETT, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Petitioners, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Respondent. ─────────────♦───────────── On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ─────────────♦───────────── PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ─────────────♦───────────── Steve Marshall* Attorney General Mark Griffin Chief Legal Counsel Andrew L. Brasher Solicitor General Margaret Johnson McNeill Corey L. Maze Keith Maddox Special Deputy Atty Gen’l Ass’t Attorneys General *Counsel of Record STATE OF ALABAMA OFFICE OF THE ALABAMA DEP’T OF REVENUE ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 32001 501 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36132 Montgomery, AL 36130 (334) 242-9690 (334) 242-7300
[email protected] October 5, 2018 Counsel for Petitioners i QUESTION PRESENTED The Court has heard this case twice before. In its first opinion, the Court held that CSX Transportation could challenge Alabama’s sales-and-use tax as “an- other tax that discriminates against a rail carrier” in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 11501(b) because Alabama ex- empts trucks and water carriers—but not rail carri- ers—from paying the tax when purchasing diesel fuel to transport goods interstate. See CSX Transp., Inc. v. Ala. Dep’t of Revenue, 562 U.S. 277 (2010). In its second opinion, the Court held that the lower courts must look outside the challenged sales-and-use tax to determine whether Alabama could justify the exemp- tions. See Alabama Dep’t of Revenue v. CSX Transp., Inc., 135 S.Ct.