Barclays Bank PLC v. Franchise Tax Board of California
512 U.S. 298 · Decided June 20, 1994 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Barclays Bank PLC v. Franchise Tax Board of California was decided on June 20, 1994 by a vote of 7–2. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “State or local government tax” in the Economic Activity area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 512 U.S. 298 · 114 S. Ct. 2268 · 129 L. Ed. 2d 244 · 1994 U.S. LEXIS 4642
- Docket number
- 92-1384
- Decided
- June 20, 1994
- Argued
- March 28, 1994
- Court era
- Rehnquist Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority opinion
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg
- Opinion assigned by
- William H. Rehnquist
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- State or local government tax
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Legal provision
- Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3 (interstate commerce clause)
- Type of law
- Constitution
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority | |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Majority | |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Special concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Majority | |
| Justice David H. Souter | Majority | |
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Dissent | |
| Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
Full case caption
Barclays Bank PLC v. Franchise Tax Board of California
SCDB identifiers: case 1993-079, docket 1993-079-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “State or local government tax”
- Associated Industries of Missouri v. Janette M. LohmanLaw held unconstitutional
- Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of the State of OregonLaw held unconstitutional
- Department of Revenue of Oregon v. Acf Industries, Inc.
- Charles J. Reich v. Marcus E. CollinsLaw held unconstitutional
- Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Jefferson Lines, Inc.
- Itel Containers International Corporation v. Joe Huddleston
Cases on the same legal provision: Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3 (interstate commerce clause)
- West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Jonathan HealyLaw held unconstitutional
- C & a Carbone, Inc. v. Town of ClarkstownLaw held unconstitutional
- New York v. United StatesLaw held unconstitutional
- Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Department of Natural ResourcesLaw held unconstitutional
- State of Wyoming v. State of OklahomaLaw held unconstitutional
- Healy v. the Beer InstituteAltered precedentLaw held unconstitutional
Same Term, same area (Economic Activity)
- John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Harris Trust and Savings Bank
- Department of Revenue of Oregon v. Acf Industries, Inc.
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. John H. Meyer
- Luther R. Campbell aka Luke Skyywalker v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
- Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of the State of OregonLaw held unconstitutional
- Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A. and Jack K. Naber
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error