Changes

In ''Hibbs v. Winn'', 542 U.S. 88 (2004), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] narrowly held that the [[Tax Injunction Act]] does not withdraw jurisdiction from [[federal court]]s over an [[Establishment Clause]] claim to [[Arizona]] income-tax credits for payments to organizations that award educational scholarships and tuition grants to children attending private schools.

In ''Hibbs v. Winn'', 542 U.S. 88 (2004), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] narrowly held that the [[Tax Injunction Act]] does not withdraw jurisdiction from [[federal court]]s over an [[Establishment Clause]] claim to [[Arizona]] income-tax credits for payments to organizations that award educational scholarships and tuition grants to children attending private schools.

Justice [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]] wrote the opinion for the 5-4 Court, with Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] providing the swing vote:

Justice [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]] wrote the opinion for the 5-4 Court.  The swing vote was provided by Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] (who has since been replaced by Justice [[Sam Alito]], who is likely to rule differently):

:The question presented is whether the Tax Injunction Act (TIA or Act), 28 U.S.C. § 1341[28 USCS § 1341], which prohibits a lower federal court from restraining "the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law," bars the suit. Plaintiffs-respondents do not contest their own tax liability. Nor do they seek to impede Arizona's receipt of tax revenues. Their suit, we hold, is not the kind § 1341 proscribes.

:The question presented is whether the Tax Injunction Act (TIA or Act), 28 U.S.C. § 1341[28 USCS § 1341], which prohibits a lower federal court from restraining "the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law," bars the suit. Plaintiffs-respondents do not contest their own tax liability. Nor do they seek to impede Arizona's receipt of tax revenues. Their suit, we hold, is not the kind § 1341 proscribes.