Washington – The Supreme Court seemed unlikely Wednesday to second-guess a plan by Ohio legislators to offer lucrative tax incentives to companies that expand their investments in the state.
In arguments before the justices, Ohio and Michigan taxpayers who object to the plan had a hard time on several fronts. The justices seemed skeptical that the taxpayers even had standing to challenge the plan. Beyond that, the justices who spoke up seemed to think that the dispute over such plans was political in nature, and best left to elected officials.
Peter Enrich, the attorney for the taxpayers, said the issue raised important constitutional issues.
“It’s a discriminatory practice that implicates competition between the states,” Enrich said. “It would be a tariff by any other name.”
The case springs from a burgeoning national squabble over pricey state giveaways that have become a staple of economic-development plans. To lure new businesses or persuade existing ones to expand, states promise huge tax breaks or outright tax waivers.
Increasingly, taxpayers have begun to question whether they’re good policy.
