Alaska v. Arctic Maid
| Alaska v. Arctic Maid | |
|---|---|
 commerce clause . | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Douglas, joined by Warren, Black, Frankfurter, Clark, Brennan, Whittaker, Stewart |
| Dissent | Harlan |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. art. I sec. 8 clause 3 | |
Alaska v. Arctic Maid, 366 U.S. 199 (1961), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of an Alaskan law that imposed an annual tax on freezer ships operating in Alaskan waters, even if the fish onboard is canned and sold in another state.
Background
Before Alaska was granted statehood in 1959, Alaska was a U.S. Territory whose laws were governed by the First Territorial Legislature of Alaska.[1] In 1951, the Territorial Legislature amended the tax code to levy an annual licensing tax on persons or corporations operating freezer ships in Alaska's territorial waters for commercial fishing.[2] The tax was to be "equal to 4% of the value of the raw halibut, halibut livers and viscera, salmon and bottom fish, shellfish or other fishing resource bought or otherwise obtained for processing through freezing".[3]
Several fisheries operated freezer ships in the Bristol Bay area, which was "a famous fishing ground for salmon".[3] Because of Bristol Bay's shallow waters, salmon would be caught by small "catcher boats", then transported to larger freezer ships docked about three miles from the shoreline. The freezer ships would serve as the "base" for the fisheries' operations and would sometimes be inside Alaska's territorial waters, which extended three miles from the coast, and would sometimes be beyond it.[4] On the freezer ships, the salmon would be frozen and kept in cold storage before eventually being sent to Puget Sound in the State of Washington for canning.[4]
Alaska filed suit against seven fisheries, including Arctic Maid Fisheries, to collect taxes that the fisheries had not paid.[5] The fisheries countersued, claiming that the law was an invalid burden on interstate commerce, because the salmon, although caught in Alaskan waters, was canned and sold on the market in Washington State.[6] The District Court of Alaska held in favor of the fisheries, finding that the freezing of fish is not a taxable event.[7] The state of Alaska appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments on January 13, 1958.[8]
Opinion of the Court
Oral arguments were held on March 23, 1961. Gary Thurlow argued the case for Alaska and Martin Detels Jr. argued the case for the fisheries.
See also
References
- ^ "First Territorial Legislature of Alaska". National Park Service. Retrieved May 2, 2023.
- ^ a b Alaska v. Arctic Maid, 366 U.S. at 199 (syllabus).
- ^ a b Alaska v. Arctic Maid, 366 U.S. at 200.
- ^ a b Alaska v. Arctic Maid, 366 U.S. at 201.
- ^ "Okays State Tax on Ships". Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. Fairbanks, Alaska. May 2, 1961. Retrieved May 2, 2023.
- ^ "Alaska Wins Legal battle to Tax Freezer Ships". The Nome Nugget. Associated Press. September 7, 1962. Retrieved May 2, 2023.
- D. Alaska1956).
- ^ "Fish Processing Case in Circuit Court Jan. 13". Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. Associated Press. December 19, 1957. p. 8. Retrieved November 22, 2023.
- ^ "Alaska v. Arctic Maid". Oyez Project. Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved May 2, 2023.
- ^ Alaska v. Arctic Maid, 366 U.S. at 205 (Harlan, J., dissenting).
External links
- Text of Alaska v. Arctic Maid, 366 U.S. 199 (1961) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |