A recurring theme in Justice Barrett’s opinions is making attorneys work for his or her case. She won’t join their dots. Until they forcefully make every step in an argument, they haven’t met their burden. Brackeen v. Haaland demonstrates this fastidiousness.
And, we noticed it as soon as once more in Moore v. United.
Congress’s energy to attribute the earnings of carefully held companies to their shareholders is a troublesome query—and sadly, the events barely addressed it. With out targeted briefing on the attribution query, I’d not resolve it. Subpart F and the MRT might or might not be constitutional, nonarbitrary attributions of carefully held international companies’ earnings to their shareholders. On this litigation, nonetheless, the Moores have conceded that subpart F is constitutional. Tr. of Oral Arg. 9. And I agree with theCourt that subpart F will not be meaningfully completely different from the MRT in the way it attributes company earnings to shareholders. Ante, at 20–21. Taxpayers typically bear the burden to point out they’re entitled to a refund. United States v. Janis, 428 U. S. 433, 440 (1976); see additionally Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 S. 255, 277–278 (2023) (burden to point out unconstitutionality). Given the Moores’ concession, they haven’t met that burden right here. For that cause, I concur within the Court docket’s judgment affirming the judgment under.
In candor, I’ve not fastidiously reviewed the document, so I have no idea what “barely addressed” means right here. However no matter it was, it was not sufficient for Professor Barrett.
BTW, the title has nothing to do with this submit, however I appreciated the pun. I am certain some regulation scholar will discover it a helpful title for a scholar be aware. Within the spirit of Brian Frye, you are welcome to make use of it as you want!
