| Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt | |
|---|---|
| Argued December 7, 2015 Decided April 19, 2016 | |
| Full case name | Franchise Tax Board of California, Petitioner v. Gilbert P. Hyatt |
| Docket no. | 14-1175 |
| Citations | 578 U.S. 171 ( more ) 136 S. Ct. 1277; 194 L. Ed. 2d 431 |
| Holding | |
| The Nevada rule not extending the same immunities to agencies of other states as it does to its own is a "policy of hostility" and unconstitutional under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Breyer, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Alito (in judgment) |
| Dissent | Roberts, joined by Thomas |
Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (short: Hyatt II), 578 U.S. 171 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Nevada rule that does not extend the same immunities to agencies of other states as it does to its own is effectively a "policy of hostility", which is unconstitutional under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Court split equally on the question whether Nevada v. Hall should be overruled, effectively upholding it. [1] [2] [3] [4]
| | This section needs expansion. You can help by adding missing information. (February 2026) |
The Supreme Court issued its opinion on April 19, 2016. [1] Writing for a 6-2 majority, Justice Breyer reasoned that the Supreme Court of Nevada's decision "applied a special rule of law applicable only in lawsuits against its sister States." Such a rule was unconstitutional under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Chief Justice Robers wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Thomas. [1]
In 2019, in a majority opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Court expressly overruled Nevada v. Hall. [5]