Arkansas Writers Project, Inc. v. Ragland 481 U.S.

221 (1987)

Carrie Scanlon

U.S. Supreme Court says Arkansas selective media taxation is illegal

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that it is illegal for Arkansas sales tax plan to include selective media taxation on magazines based on content. The tax targets general interest magazines and exempts newspapers and religious, professional, trade and sports journals. The ruling stems from the case regarding Arkansas Writers Project, Inc., the publisher of Arkansas Times, a general interest monthly magazine that has previously been denied tax exemption as a result of the variety of article topics ranging from religion to sports. Relying on the 1983 Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue case, which found tax on paper and ink used in production of newspapers unconstitutional, the publisher of the Arkansas Times requested a sales tax refund. A complaint was filed after Charles D. Ragland, Commissioner of Revenue of Arkansas, denied the request. Oftentimes, the Court applies rulings from previous legal cases, which is called a persuasive precedent in this situation, to the decisions of subsequent cases with similar issues or facts, said Anne Owings Wilson, the attorney representing Arkansas Writers Project, Inc. This case undeniably gained assistance from the outcome of Minneapolis Star & Tribune. The 7-2 decision delivered by Justice Thurgood Marshall overturned a previous decision by a lower court, which held that the magazine exemption only applies to

religious, professional trade or sports journals and rejected the publishers claim that the taxation was discriminatory. In order to justify unfair taxation, Ragland claimed the regulation illustrated the states interest in raising revenue and supporting new publishers who, unlike the Arkansas Times, fall under the media categories for exemption and have limited audiences. However, the Court found these claims invalid. In sum, the commissioner failed to justify selective taxation of certain publishers and verified that the practice undoubtedly violates the law as it involves differential treatment of the press, the high court ruled. It denies certain publications an exemption from taxation based on content and lessens the expression of ideas, which the First Amendment strives to protect. Raglands attorney, John Steven Clark, did not return a phone call seeking comment. Following the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of the publisher, the selective media taxation case will now return to the Arkansas courts for further examination.

Tweet: (___ characters)