harper virginia dept taxation argued december decided june davis michigan dept treasury invalidated michigan practice taxing retirement benefits paid federal government exempting retirement benefits paid state political subdivisions michigan conceded refund federal retirees appropriate remedy remanded entry judgment state virginia subsequently amended similar statute taxed federal retirees exempting state local retirees petitioners federal civil service military retirees sought refund taxes assessed virginia revision statute applying factors set forth chevron oil huson state trial denied relief petitioners taxable events occurring davis decided affirming virginia concluded davis applied retroactively chevron oil american trucking smith plurality opinion also held matters state law assessments neither erroneous improper decision declaring tax scheme unconstitutional solely prospective effect james beam distilling georgia however six members required retroactive application bacchus imports dias prohibited imposing higher excise taxes imported alcoholic beverages locally produced beverages claims arising facts predating decision justices disagreed georgia use chevron oil retroactivity analysis ordered reevaluation petitioners suit light beam virginia reaffirmed decision respects held beam foreclose use chevron oil analysis davis decide whether rule applied retroactively held applies rule federal law parties rule controlling interpretation federal law must given full retroactive effect cases still open direct review events regardless whether events predate postdate announcement rule pp rule fairly reflects position majority justices beam extends civil cases ban selective application new rules criminal cases griffith kentucky mindful basic norms constitutional adjudication animating view retroactivity criminal cases nature judicial review strips quintessentially legislative prerogative make rules law retroactive prospective sees fit selective application new rules violates principle treating similarly situated parties prohibits erection selective temporal barriers application federal law noncriminal cases reserve question whether holding applied parties opinion properly understood followed normal rule retroactive application beam opinion souter legal imperative apply rule prevails claim based chevron oil analysis ibid pp applied rule law announced davis parties response michigan concession refund appropriate davis far reserving retroactivity question constituted retroactive application rule decision accord solely prospective effect davis foreclosed discussion remedial issues pp decision rest independent adequate state law grounds holding state law retroactivity doctrine permitted solely prospective application ruling state simply incorporated state law analysis chevron oil criminal retroactivity cases overruled griffith supremacy clause however allow federal retroactivity doctrine supplanted invocation contrary approach retroactivity state law similarly state conclusion challenged assessments erroneous improper state law rested solely determination davis apply retroactively pp virginia free choose form relief provide long relief consistent federal due process principles state retains flexibility responding determination imposed impermissibly discriminatory tax availability predeprivation hearing constitutes procedural safeguard sufficient satisfy due process relief exists state must provide meaningful relief either awarding full refunds issuing order creates hindsight nondiscriminatory scheme since remedy constitutional sufficiency turns least initially whether virginia law provides adequate form predeprivation process since issue properly presented question performance tasks pertaining crafting appropriate remedy left virginia courts pp thomas delivered opinion blackmun stevens scalia souter joined parts iii white kennedy joined scalia filed concurring opinion post kennedy filed opinion concurring part concurring judgment white joined post filed dissenting opinion rehnquist joined post michael kator argued cause filed briefs petitioners gail starling marshall argued cause respondent brief mary sue terry attorney general virginia stephen rosenthal chief deputy attorney general gregory lucyk pendleton rogers senior assistant attorneys general barbara vann assistant attorney general peter low briefs amici curiae urging affirmance filed state arkansas winston bryant attorney general arkansas joyce kinkead state georgia michael bowers attorney general georgia warren calvert daniel formby senior assistant attorneys general state north carolina et al lacy thornburg attorney general north carolina edwin speas senior deputy attorney general jefferson powell norma harrell thomas moffitt special deputy attorneys general marilyn mudge assistant attorney general grant woods attorney general arizona rebecca white berch gail boyd assistant attorney general state utah et al paul van dam attorney general utah leon dever assistant attorney general james evans attorney general alabama charles cole attorney general alaska tautai attorney general american samoa daniel lungren attorney general california richard blumenthal attorney general connecticut charles oberly iii attorney general delaware john payton corporate counsel district columbia warren price iii attorney general hawaii larry echohawk attorney general idaho roland burris attorney general illinois linley pearson attorney general indiana bonnie campbell attorney general iowa chris gorman attorney general kentucky michael carpenter attorney general maine joseph curran attorney general maryland scott harshbarger attorney general massachusetts frank kelley attorney general michigan hubert humphrey iii attorney general minnesota michael moore attorney general mississippi marc racicot attorney general montana stenberg attorney general nebraska frankie sue del papa attorney general nevada john arnold attorney general new hampshire robert del tufo attorney general new jersey tom udall attorney general new mexico robert abrams attorney general new york lee fisher attorney general ohio susan loving attorney general oklahoma charles crookham attorney general oregon ernest preate attorney general pennsylvania jorge attorney general puerto rico james attorney general rhode island crawford clarkson mark barnett attorney general south dakota charles burson attorney general tennessee dan morales attorney general texas jeffrey amestoy attorney general vermont rosalie simmonds ballentine attorney general virgin islands kenneth eikenberry attorney general washington mario palumbo attorney general west virginia joseph meyer attorney general wyoming james doyle attorney general wisconsin city new york peter sherwood edward hart stanley buchsbaum national governors association et al richard ruda charles rothfeld briefs amici curiae filed designated federal retirees kansas et al john frieden kevin fowler kenton granger roger theis carrold ray eugene boyce donald smith edmund sheehy brian luscher gene connell doyle fuller james beam distilling morton siegel michael moses richard schoenstadt james webster john taylor military coalition eugene duffy virginia manufacturers association walter smith justice thomas delivered opinion davis michigan dept treasury held state violates constitutional doctrine intergovernmental tax immunity taxes retirement benefits paid federal government exempts taxation retirement benefits paid state political subdivisions relying retroactivity analysis chevron oil huson virginia twice refused apply davis taxes imposed davis decided accord griffith kentucky james beam distilling georgia hold application rule federal law parties requires every give retroactive effect decision therefore reverse michigan tax scheme issue davis exempt ed taxation retirement benefits paid state political subdivisions levie income tax retirement benefits paid federal government held consented discriminatory imposition heavier tax burden federal benefits state local benefits michigan conceded refund appropriate recognized federal retirees entitled refund taxes paid pursuant invalid tax scheme like michigan virginia exempted state local employees retirement benefits state income taxation taxing federal retirement benefits ann supp response davis virginia repealed exemption state local government employees acts special sess ii ch also enacted special statute limitations refund claims made light davis statute taxpayers may seek refund state taxes imposed federal retirement benefits one year date final judicial resolution whether virginia must refund taxes ann supp petitioners federal civil service military retirees sought refund taxes erroneously improperly assessed violation davis nondiscrimination principle ann trial denied relief law mar applying factors set forth chevron oil huson supra reasoned davis decided issue first impression whose resolution clearly foreshadowed prospective application davis retard operation retroactive application result inequity injustice hardship app pet cert virginia affirmed harper virginia dept taxation concluded consulting chevron plurality opinion american trucking smith davis decision applied retroactively also rejected petitioners contention refunds due matter state law ibid concluded davis decision applied retroactively assessments neither erroneous improper virginia tax refund statute matter virginia law held ruling declaring taxing scheme unconstitutional applied prospectively ibid rationale supplied another reason refusing relief ibid even virginia courts denying relief petitioners confronting similar retroactivity problem james beam distilling georgia issue bacchus imports dias prohibited imposing higher excise taxes imported alcoholic beverages local products georgia used analysis described chevron oil huson deny retroactive effect decision six members disagreed concluding instead bacchus must applied retroactively claims arising facts predating decision beam opinion souter white concurring judgment blackmun concurring judgment scalia concurring judgment deciding beam vacated judgment harper remanded consideration remand virginia denied tax relief reasoned michigan contest davis plaintiffs entitlement refund made ruling regarding retroactive application rule litigants case concluding beam foreclose application chevron retroactivity analysis retroactivity issue decided davis reaffirm ed prior decision respects decided davis gave preferential tax treatment benefits received employees state local governments relative tax treatment benefits received federal employees like virginia several state courts refused accord full retroactive effect davis controlling statement federal law two courts refusing apply davis retroactively done remanded reconsideration light beam see bass south carolina harper virginia dept taxation lewy virginia dept taxation decided harper virginia dept taxation contrast arkansas concluded matter federal law davis applies retroactively pledger bosnick ark cert pending cf reich collins holding davis applies retroactively reasoning state law precluded refund cert pending nos virginia reaffirmed original decision granted certiorari second time reverse ii oth common law decisions recognized general rule retrospective effect constitutional decisions robinson neil nothing constitution alters fundamental rule retrospective operation governed udicial decisions near thousand years kuhn fairmont coal holmes dissenting linkletter walker however developed doctrine deny retroactive effect newly announced rule criminal law linkletter decision confine new rule prospective application rested purpose new rule reliance placed upon previous view law effect administration justice retrospective application new rule limiting mapp ohio civil context similarly permitted denial retroactive effect new principle law limitation avoid injustice hardship without unduly undermining purpose effect new rule chevron oil huson quoting cipriano city houma dicta griffith however stated civil retroactivity continue governed standard announced chevron oil divided meaning dicta american trucking smith four justices plurality used chevron oil test consider whether confine application american trucking scheiner taxation highway use prior june date decided scheiner opinion joined rehnquist white kennedy four justices rejected plurality anomalous approach retroactivity declined hold law applicable particular case law parties believe good faith applicable case stevens dissenting joined brennan marshall blackmun finally despite concurring judgment justice scalia share dissent perception prospective decisionmaking incompatible judicial role griffith american trucking thus left unresolved precise extent presumptively retroactive effect decisions may altered civil cases since adopted rule requiring retroactive application civil decision davis although james beam distilling georgia produce unified opinion majority justices agreed rule federal law announced applied parties controversy must given full retroactive effect courts adjudicating federal law announcing judgment justice souter laid rule determining retroactive effect civil decision case announcing rule federal law appl ied rule respect litigants may refuse apply rule retroactively opinion souter joined stevens justice souter view retroactivity superseded claim based chevron oil analysis ibid justice white likewise concluded decision extending benefit judgment winning party applied litigants whose cases final time first decision opinion concurring judgment three justices agreed judicial responsibility requir es retroactive application rule announce blackmun joined marshall scalia concurring judgment see also scalia joined marshall blackmun concurring judgment beam controls case accordingly adopt rule fairly reflects position majority justices beam applies rule federal law parties rule controlling interpretation federal law must given full retroactive effect cases still open direct review events regardless whether events predate postdate announcement rule rule extends griffith ban selective application new rules mindful basic norms constitutional adjudication animated view retroactivity criminal context prohibit erection selective temporal barriers application federal law noncriminal cases civil criminal cases scarcely permit substantive law shift spring according particular equities individual parties claims actual reliance old rule harm retroactive application new rule beam supra opinion souter approach retroactivity heeds admonition constitutional authority civil cases criminal cases disregard current law treat similarly situated litigants differently american trucking supra stevens dissenting virginia appl ied chevron oil test deciding retroactivity issue presented litigation reserve question whether holding applied parties however opinion announcing rule federal law properly understood followed normal rule retroactive application must read hold rule apply retroactively litigants beam opinion souter accord white concurring judgment dissenting furthermore legal imperative apply rule federal law retroactively case announcing rule already done must prevai claim based chevron oil analysis opinion souter effort distinguish davis virginia surmised made ruling application rule announced davis retroactively litigants case ecause retroactivity issue decided davis believed foreclosed precedent applying chevron oil test deciding retroactivity issue present case ibid disagree davis hold preferential state tax treatment state local employee pensions though constitutionally invalid future upheld events predating announcement davis governmental appellee davis conceded refund appropriate conclude michigan income tax act violate principles intergovernmental tax immunity favoring retired state local governmental employees retired federal employees stated extent appellant paid taxes pursuant invalid tax scheme entitled refund ibid far reserving retroactivity question response appellee concession constituted retroactive application rule announced davis parties decision accord solely prospective effect davis foreclosed discussion remedial issues consideration remedial issues meant necessarily retroactively applied rule announced davis litigants us beam supra opinion souter therefore griffith beam retroactivity approach adopt today virginia must apply davis petitioners refund action iii respondent virginia department taxation defends judgment resting independent adequate state ground relieved virginia obligation apply davis events occurring announcement decision petitioners contended even davis decision applie prospectively entitled relief virginia tax refund statute ann harper virginia dept taxation virginia rejected argument first reasoned davis apply retroactively tax assessments predating davis neither erroneous improper within meaning virginia tax statute ibid offered another reason rejecting petitioners state law contention previously held ruling declaring taxing scheme unconstitutional applied prospectively ibid citing perkins albemarle county aff modified capehart city chesapeake appeal denied xlvii cert denied formulation state law retroactivity doctrine consideration given purpose new rule extent reliance old rule effect administration justice retroactive application new rule fountain fountain cert denied quoted suggests virginia simply incorporated state law analysis chevron oil criminal retroactivity cases overruled griffith see stovall denno reject department defense decision supremacy clause art vi cl allow federal retroactivity doctrine supplanted invocation contrary approach retroactivity state law whatever freedom state courts may enjoy limit retroactive operation interpretations state law see great northern sunburst oil refining extend interpretations federal law see national mines caryl per curiam ashland oil caryl per curiam also decline department taxation invitation affirm judgment resting independent adequate ground virginia law remedies offered retrospective refund remedy taxable years concluded davis announced brief respondent virginia conclusion challenged tax assessments neither erroneous improper within meaning refund statute rested solely determination davis apply retroactively harper virginia dept taxation supra decided davis applies retroactively tax years issue petitioners refund action reverse judgment enter judgment petitioners however federal law necessarily entitle refund rather constitution requires virginia provide relief consistent federal due process principles american trucking plurality opinion due process clause amdt state found imposed impermissibly discriminatory tax retains flexibility responding determination mckesson division alcoholic beverages tobacco dept business regulations virginia offers meaningful opportunity taxpayers withhold contested tax assessments challenge validity predeprivation hearing availability predeprivation hearing constitutes procedural safeguard sufficient satisfy due process clause hand predeprivation remedy exists due process clause fourteenth amendment obligates state provide meaningful relief rectify unconstitutional deprivation footnotes omitted providing relief state may either award full refunds burdened unlawful tax issue order create hindsight nondiscriminatory scheme cf davis suggesting state failure respect intergovernmental tax immunity cured either extending discriminatory tax exemption retired federal employees eliminating exemption retired state local government employees constitutional sufficiency remedy thus turns least initially whether virginia law provide adequate form predeprivation process example authorizing taxpayers bring suit enjoin imposition tax prior payment allowing taxpayers withhold payment interpose objections defenses tax enforcement proceeding mckesson issue properly presented leave virginia courts question state law performance tasks pertaining crafting appropriate remedy virginia free choose form relief provide long relief satisfies minimum federal requirements outlined state law may provide relief beyond demands federal due process circumstances may confine petitioners lesser remedy see iv reverse judgment virginia remand case proceedings inconsistent opinion ordered footnotes since followed davis held state violates intergovernmental tax immunity taxes benefits received military retirees tax benefits received retired state local government employees barker kansas applications tax refunds generally must made within three years assessment ann date decided davis statute limitations barred actions seeking refunds taxes imposed first decision applied nonretroactively must establish new principle law either overruling clear past precedent litigants may relied deciding issue first impression whose resolution clearly foreshadowed second stressed must weigh merits demerits case looking prior history rule question purpose effect whether retrospective operation retard operation finally weighed inequity imposed retroactive application chevron oil huson citations omitted iowa code repealed iowa acts ch repeal retroactive west supp ann mo ann law mckinney utah code ann see generally harper virginia dept taxation bohn waddell tax sheehy state mont cert pending duffy wetzler appeal denied cert pending swanson state aff cert pending ragsdale department revenue tax aff grounds bass state cert pending several state courts ordered refunds matter state law claims based davis see kuhn state hackman director revenue mo cert denied accord tehan ex rel shott limiting griffin california johnson new jersey limiting escobedo illinois miranda arizona stovall denno limiting wade gilbert california need debate whether chevron oil represents true principle merely remedial principle exercise equitable discretion federal courts american trucking smith stevens dissenting compare plurality opinion treating chevron oil rule stevens dissenting treating chevron oil remedial doctrine regardless chevron oil characterized decision today makes clear chevron oil test determine choice law relying equities particular case federal law applicable particular case turn whether litigants actually relied old rule suffer retroactive application new one james beam distilling georgia opinion souter state incurs obligation places taxpayer duress promptly pay tax due relegates refund action challenge tax legality mckesson state establish es various sanctions summary remedies designed prompt taxpayers tender payments objections entertained resolved provide taxpayers meaningful opportunity withhold payment obtain predeprivation determination tax assessment validity emphasis original limitations impose constitutionally significant duress tax payment rendered circumstances must treated effort avoid financial sanctions seizure real personal property state accordingly may confine taxpayer duress prospective relief justice scalia concurring surprised see appeal stare decisis today dissent teague lane justice wrote plurality openly rejected settled precedent controlling scope retroactivity collateral review retroactivity determination opinion said normally entail application linkletter walker standard believe approach retroactivity cases collateral review requires modification dissent teague sort anticipatory echo today dissent criticizing plurality displaying infidelity doctrine stare decisis brennan dissenting upset ting precedents repudiating familiar approach without regard doctrine stare decisis failing much mention stare decisis joined plurality opinion teague believe rule announced correct see withrow williams scalia concurring part dissenting part also believed abandonment prior collateral review retroactivity rule fully accord doctrine stare decisis applied never inflexible teague plurality opinion set forth good reasons abandoning linkletter reasons justifying similar abandonment chevron oil huson noted example linkletter ha led consistent results teague supra neither chevron oil proof means eye beholder provided quite nicely separate opinions filed today four justices still apply chevron oil two find davis michigan dept treasury retroactive see post kennedy concurring part concurring judgment two find retroactive see post dissenting second teague plurality opinion noted linkletter criticized commentators teague supra commentary cited opinion criticized linkletter retroactivity jurisprudence general considered chevron oil integral part see beytagh ten years critique proposal commentary course also regarded issue retroactivity general problem jurisprudence see fallon meltzer new law constitutional remedies schaefer prospective rulings two perspectives schaefer control sunbursts techniques prospective overruling mishkin forward high great writ due process time law finally plurality opinion teague justified departure linkletter implicitly relying proposition stare decisis less force intervening decisions removed weakened conceptual underpinnings prior decision patterson mclean credit union justice endorsed reasoning expressed justice harlan separate opinions mackey desist noted already adopted first part justice harlan retroactivity views griffith kentucky see teague supra argument equally indeed even forcefully supports reconsideration chevron oil griffith returned criminal cases traditional view shall discuss greater length prospective decisionmaking violates basic norms constitutional adjudication griffith supra one conceptual underpinnings chevron oil retroactivity presents similar problem civil criminal contexts see chevron oil supra see also beytagh supra thus griffith chevron oil adhered rejecting reasoning chevron oil asserting issue retroactivity different civil criminal settings particularly difficult proof make inasmuch griffith rested basic norms constitutional adjudication nature judicial review see also teague supra white concurring part concurring judgment griffith appear constitutional underpinnings provokes comment dissent however insistence today rigid doctrine stare decisis forbids tinkering retroactivity four terms ago rather irony invoking stare decisis defense prospective decisionmaking prospective decisionmaking handmaid judicial activism born enemy stare decisis formulated heyday legal realism promoted techniqu judicial lawmaking general specifically means making easier overrule prior precedent levy realist jurisprudence prospective overruling thus dissent saying effect stare decisis demands preservation methods destroying stare decisis recently invented violation stare decisis contrary dissent assertion chevron oil articulated traditional retroactivity analysis post jurisprudence reflects came justice harlan observed less years ago linkletter walker mackey supra one current members sitting invented true traditional view prospective decisionmaking quite incompatible judicial power courts authority engage practice see ante james beam distilling georgia opinion souter american trucking smith scalia concurring judgment desist supra harlan dissenting great northern sunburst oil refining linkletter recognized common law authority proposition judicial decisions made law future linkletter academic proponents prospective judicial decisionmaking acknowledged proposal contradicted traditional practice see levy supra carpenter decisions common law indeed roots contrary tradition deep justice holmes prepared hazard guess udicial decisions retrospective operation near thousand years kuhn fairmont coal dissenting opinion justice asserts hen changes mind law changes post quoting beam supra dissenting concept quite foreign american legal constitutional tradition struck john marshall extraordinary assertion raw power conception judicial role possessed shared succeeding generations american judges recent times took province duty judicial department say law marbury madison cranch emphasis added law shall original enduring american perception judicial role sprang philosophy nietzsche jurisprudence blackstone viewed retroactivity inherent characteristic judicial power power delegated pronounce new law maintain expound old one blackstone commentaries even former determination evidently contrary reason contrary divine law judge overruling decision pretend make new law vindicate old one misrepresentation found former decision manifestly absurd unjust declared sentence bad law law emphasis original fully retroactive decisionmaking considered principal distinction judicial legislative power said distinguishes judicial legislative act one determination existing law relation existing thing already done happened predetermination law shall regulation future cases cooley constitutional limitations critics traditional rule full retroactivity well aware grounded one contemptuously called another fiction known separation powers kocourek retrospective decisions stare decisis proposal prospective decisionmaking known foe friend alike practical tool judicial activism born disregard stare decisis eyes enemies doctrine smack ed legislative process mishkin encroach ed prerogatives legislative department government von moschzisker stare decisis courts last resort removed one great inherent restraints upon depart ing field interpretation enter lawmaking james black concurring part dissenting part caused behavior become assimilated legislature kurland toward political tended cut courts loose force precedent allowing restructure artificially expectations legitimately created extant law thereby mitigate practical force stare decisis mackey harlan concurring judgment denied doctrine friends also viewed device augmen power courts contribute growth law keeping demands society mallamud prospective limitation rights accused iowa deliberate conscious technique judicial lawmaking levy means facilitating effective defensible judicial lawmaking justice harlan described embrace prospectivity principle product disquietude impacts pace constitutional innovation mackey supra however glowingly described doctrine cause rather effect innovation extolling technique providing impetus implementation reforms jenkins delaware whether cause effect doubt era gave birth prospectivity principle marked disregard stare decisis one commentator calculated number instances reversals involving constitutional issues grown sixty two decades followed overruled constitutional cases less occasions maltz thoughts death stare decisis constitutional law era cast overboard numerous settled decisions indeed even whole areas law unceremonious see mapp ohio overruling wolf colorado gideon wainwright overruling betts brady miranda arizona overruling crooker california cicenia lagay katz overruling olmstead goldman argue one jurisprudential tools judicial activism period extended grounds stare decisis described paradoxical sum join opinion doctrine prospective decisionmaking fact protected flexible rule stare decisis friend stare decisis want dissent attempts distinguish retroactivity civil criminal settings three grounds none ever adopted dissent first argument begins observation nonretroactivity criminal cases historically favored government reliance interests rights criminal defendants post true prospectivity usually employed past brief period used criminal cases favor government basis implicit suggestion usually favor government future phenomenon consequence nature doctrine cf james historical accident period prospectivity fashion legal rules favoring government frequently overturned fundamentally base rule full retroactivity criminal law area upon dissent calls generalized policy favoring individual rights governmental prerogative post makes sense adopt generalized policy similarly gross rule decision favoring criminal defendants ever overruled law discerning dissent next argument based dubious empirical assumption civil litigants criminal defendants often receive benefit prospective decision assumption hold even case prospective invalidation virginia taxing scheme afford petitioners enormous future benefit ibid knowing others state taxed empirical problems aside dissent explain principle important use inaccurate proxy distinction newlydiscovered principle overcomes basic norms constitutional adjudication griffith kentucky rested finally dissent equal treatment argument ably distinguishes cases prospectivity claim properly raised see post nothing distinguish civil criminal cases obviously party may procedurally default claim either context contrary suggestion dissent arguing cast overboard entire retroactivity doctrine unceremonious post emphasis added internal quotation marks omitted need cast first half six terms ago griffith rest two terms ago james beam distilling georgia neither case unceremoniously marked contrast overrulings cited text little remains teetering end plank needs gentle nudge entire doctrine given quick unceremonious end complaint grounds stare decisis born die know basis dissent contention find jurisprudence era produced doctrine prospectivity distasteful post much quite appetizing cavalier treatment stare decisis invention prospectivity criticized justice kennedy justice white joins concurring part concurring judgment remain view sometimes appropriate civil context give prospective application judicial decision rospective overruling allows courts respect principle stare decisis even impelled change law light new understanding american trucking smith plurality opinion promulgates new rule law prospective application functions avoid injustice hardship civil litigants justifiably relied prior law internal quotation marks omitted see phoenix kolodziejski cipriano city houma per curiam england louisiana bd medical examiners view retroactivity civil cases continues governed standard announced chevron oil huson thus reasons explained justice post agree broad dicta ante appears embrace civil context retroactivity principles adopted criminal cases griffith kentucky justice demonstrated elsewhere differences civil criminal contexts counsel strongly adoption griffith civil cases see american trucking smith supra also accept conclusion ante based justice souter opinion james beam distilling georgia decision must applied retroactive manner simply rule law announced happened applied parties see post dissenting james beam distilling georgia supra dissenting reasons join part ii opinion nonetheless agree davis michigan dept treasury must given retroactive effect first condition prospective application decision must announce new rule law ashland oil caryl per curiam american trucking smith supra johnson chevron oil huson decision must overrul clear past precedent litigants may relied decid issue first impression whose resolution clearly foreshadowed davis neither announce new law therefore must applied retroactive manner respondent argues two new principles law established davis first points holding consents state taxation compensation officer employee applies federal retirees well current federal employees brief respondent see davis davis however indicated holding dictate plain language statute added good measure view language statute unambiguous unmistakable leaves room doubt given characterizations quite implausible contend regard davis decided issue first impression whose resolution clearly foreshadowed chevron oil supra second new rule respondent contends announced davis state statute issue discriminated federal retirees even though statute treated like state taxpayers except state employees brief respondent see davis supra davis however anchored decision precedent observed phillips chemical dumas independent school faced th precise situation confronting us davis phillips chemical controlled holding sure justice stevens dissent disagreed contentions attempted distinguish phillips chemical however persuaded time remain convinced better reading phillips chemical contrary holding davis view created clear inconsistency jurisprudence chevron oil application precedent directly controls stuff new law made far revolutionary ashland oil caryl supra avulsive change caused current law thereafter flow new banks hanover shoe shoe machinery davis mere application plain statutory language existing precedent circumstances free mitigate financial hardship might befall virginia taxpayers result state government failure reach correct understanding unambiguous dictates federal law believe davis michigan dept treasury supra announced new principle law occasion consider justice argument post equitable considerations may inform formulation remedies new rule announced event read part iii opinion saying anything inconsistent justice proposes understanding join parts iii opinion concur judgment justice chief justice joins dissenting today applies new rule retroactivity impose crushing unnecessary liability precisely time least afford decision product statutory constitutional command choice join nothing constitution statute requires us adopt retroactivity rule majority applies fact longstanding precedent requires opposite result see reason abandon traditional retroactivity analysis articulated chevron oil huson believe virginia correctly applied chevron oil case affirm judgment retroactivity jurisprudence become somewhat chaotic recent years three terms ago case american trucking smith produced three opinions none garnered majority one term later james beam distilling georgia yielded five opinions single writing carried three votes result today finds confronted disarray rather relying precedent must resort vote counting examining various opinion jim beam discerns six votes single proposition view controls case ante given appropriate weight principle stare decisis first place retroactivity jurisprudence never become hopelessly muddled long ago law retroactivity civil cases considered well settled chevron oil explained whether decision nonretroactive depends whether announces new rule whether prospectivity undermine purposes rule whether retroactive application produce injustice even adjusted retroactivity rule criminal cases direct review six years ago reaffirmed vitality chevron oil noting retroactivity civil cases continues governed standard announced chevron oil huson griffith kentucky american trucking supra however number justices expressed contrary view jurisprudential equivalent entropy immediately took whatever merits retroactivity test denied resolution case us simplified greatly disregarded needlessly obligation follow precedent first place fear today rather rectifying confusion reinforces still usual case course retroactivity issue courts simply apply best understanding current law resolving case comes james beam souter law changes respect courts sometimes may elect apply new law instead apply law governed events giving rise suit took place especially change law abrupt parties may relied prior law see done one two ways first may choose make decision purely prospective refusing apply parties also case relevant facts predate decision second may apply rule cases operative events occurred decision depending equities see first option called pure prospectivity second selective prospectivity majority notes ante six justices james beam supra expressed disagreement selective prospectivity thus even though majority opinion case one derive case proposition announces today applies rule federal law parties rule must given full retroactive effect cases still open direct review ante decision forecloses possibility pure prospectivity refusal apply new rule case announced every case thereafter justice white explained concurrence james beam propriety prospective application decision constitutional statutory cases settled prior decisions opinion concurring judgment rather limiting pronouncements question selective prospectivity intimates pure prospectivity may prohibited well see ante referring lack constitutional authority disregard current law ibid relying basic norms constitutional adjudication quoting griffith supra see also touting fundamental rule retrospective operation judicial decisions intimation incorrect explained touch upon briefly hen changes mind law changes decides context civil case controversy change law must make determination whether new law old apply conduct occurring decision chevron oil describes procedure making inquiry james beam supra dissenting internal quotation marks omitted event question pure prospectivity implicated majority first holds rule applied retroactively rule must applied retroactively cases thereafter ante holds davis michigan dept treasury fact retroactively applied rule announced ante majority approach end matter applied rule retroactively davis must well accordingly reason careless dictum regarding pure prospectivity much less dictum contrary clear precedent plainly enough justice scalia cast overboard entire retroactivity doctrine precisely unceremonious decries concurrence see ante behind undisguised hostility era whose jurisprudence finds distasteful justice scalia raises two substantive arguments raised james beam scalia concurring judgment neither adopted majority justice white appropriately responded arguments see opinion concurring judgment reason repeat responses justice frankfurter explained years ago indulge fiction law announced always law much conducive law recognize candidly considerations give prospective content new pronouncement law griffin illinois opinion concurring judgment ii dissented james beam believed absolute prohibition selective prospectivity contrary precedent also rigid produced unconscionable results adhered traditional equitable balancing test chevron oil appropriate method deciding retroactivity question individual cases even one believes prohibition selective prospectivity desirable seems today takes judgment illogical inequitable extreme one thing say considered prospectivity prior case rejected must reject every case thereafter quite another hold consider possibility prospectivity prior case instead applied rule retroactively inadvertence foreclosed considering issue forever thereafter rule contrary established precedent odds notion fairness sound decisional practice yet precisely rule appears adopt today ante new approach neither authority discretion consider merits applying davis michigan dept treasury supra retroactively instead must inquire whether previous decisions happened applied davis rule retroactively parties deciding whether fact applied davis retroactively turns rather difficult matter parsing language davis opinion encounters single sentence declares determinative state conceded refund appropriate circumstances see brief appellee extent appellant paid taxes pursuant invalid tax scheme entitled refund id quoted part ante according majority sentence constitutes consideration remedial issues therefore necessarily indicates applied rule davis retroactively parties us ante quoting james beam supra opinion souter ironically respondent amici draw precisely opposite conclusion sentence according fact michigan conceded offer relief meant reason decide question retroactivity davis michigan willing provide relief whether relief required simply accepted offer preserved retroactivity question another day one might well debate meaning single sentence everyone relies debate meaningless indeterminate brecht abrahamson reaffirmed longstanding rule decision squarely addres issue remains free address merits later date accord tucker truck lines issue raised briefs argument discussed opinion taken binding precedent th point webster fall questions merely lurk record neither brought attention ruled upon considered decided constitute precedents rule traced back earliest decisions see statement marshall reported arguments counsel cranch question made case jurisdiction passed sub silentio consider bound case regardless one reads solitary sentence upon relies surely squarely address question retroactivity even mention retroactivity best addressing question remedies sentence implicitly assumes rule davis retroactive decision brecht however makes quite clear unexamined assumptions bind brecht supra assumed applicability rule bind assumption fact far less reason consider bound precedent today brecht brecht issue whether legal question resolved single case whether consistent practice applying particular rule chapman california cases collateral review precluded us limiting rule application cases direct review none prior cases directly addressed applicability chapman cases collateral review assumed applied held cases bind us particular result see brecht supra see reason single retroactive application davis rule inferred sparse ambiguous language davis carry weight consistent practice brecht offers justification disregarding settled rule recently applied brecht believe rule procedural nicety contrary critical soundness decisional processes go without saying decision applications nearly every opinion issue effects far beyond particular case issues rule applied brecht limits stare decisis effect decisions questions actually considered passed ensures decide important questions accident inadvertence adopting contrary rule area retroactivity permanently binds every unexamined assumption inattention rule creates grave risk might resolve important issues national concern sub silentio without thought consideration wise one case demonstrates danger rule question retroactivity never briefed davis passed upon within question presented indeed oral argument signaled pass upon retroactivity rule davis announce conceding michigan department taxation give davis refund prevailed counsel department argued unfair require michigan provide refunds taxpayers following colloquy ensued answer michigan issues opinion stating current michigan classification unconstitutional violation statute taxpayers question michigan specifically raised tr oral pp davis somehow decide rule retroactive chance design absence briefing argument even mention question belies suggestion issue given thoughtful consideration even author davis opinion refuses accept notion davis resolved question retroactivity instead justice kennedy applies analysis chevron oil resolve retroactivity question today see ante opinion concurring part concurring judgment decision today justified comparison decision griffith kentucky abandoned selective prospectivity criminal context ante explained american trucking significant differences criminal civil cases weigh extension first nonretroactivity criminal cases historically favored government reliance interests rights criminal defendants result generalized policy favoring individual rights governmental prerogative justify elimination prospectivity criminal arena rationale apply civil cases nonretroactivity civil context necessarily favor plaintiffs defendants policy reason protecting one class litigants another important even party civil litigation deprived full retroactive benefit new decision may receive relief example petitioners received benefit prospective invalidation virginia taxing scheme moment forward treated equal basis retirees treatment intergovernmental immunity cases require criminal defendant contrast usually interested one conviction remedy obtained rule applied retroactively see rejection selective retroactivity civil context defended equal treatment grounds see griffith supra selective retroactivity accords benefit defendant whose case decision announced defendant thereafter may well little difference criminal defendant whose case decision announced defendant seeks certiorari question two days later case tremendous difference defendant whose case davis rule announced defendant appears us today latter litigated preserved retroactivity question former michigan department taxation even brief question retroactivity davis respondent contrast actually prevailed question concerned equal treatment difference dispositive failed demand unusual prospectivity respondent davis got usual namely retroactivity respondent case asked unusual fact respondent defends judgment awarded see principles equality support forcing commonwealth virginia bear harsh consequences retroactivity simply years ago michigan department taxation failed press issue neglected consider instead principles fairness favor addressing contentions virginia department taxation presses us applying chevron oil today therefore chevron oil turn chevron oil whether decision applied nonretroactively depends three factors first threshold matter decision applied nonretroactively must establish new principle law second nonretroactivity must retard new rule operation light history purpose effect third nonretroactivity must necessary avoid substantial injustice hardship holding retroactivity might impose ibid view three factors favor holding decision davis nonretroactive justice kennedy points concurrence ante decision made nonretroactive unless announces new principle law chevron oil purposes civil retroactivity chevron oil identifies two types decisions new first decision new overturns clear past precedent litigants may relied ibid ante kennedy concurring part concurring judgment agree justice kennedy davis represent revolutionary avulsive change law ante quoting hanover shoe shoe machinery nonetheless chevron also explains decision may new resolves issue first impression whose resolution clearly foreshadowed chevron oil supra emphasis added thus even decision controlled principles articulated precedent may announce new rule long rule sufficiently debatable advance arizona governing comm tax deferred annuity deferred compensation plans norris concurring reading davis opinion alone one might get impression announce new rule even variety opinion emphatic language suggests outcome even debatable see ante kennedy concurring part concurring judgment view however assertive language determinative chief justice explained different context fact says decision controlled prior decision conclusive purposes deciding whether current decision new rule courts frequently view decisions controlled governed prior opinions even aware reasonable contrary conclusions reached courts butler mckellar event justice stevens certainly thought davis announced new rule fact thought rule unprecedented wrong holding supported rationale intergovernmental immunity doctrine compelled previous decisions join unjustified restriction state power administer affairs dissenting opinion last term two members expressed disagreement decision davis labeling application doctrine intergovernmental immunity perverse barker kansas stevens joined thomas concurring although call decision davis perverse agree rule sufficiently debatable advance fall short clearly foreshadowed great weight authority accord fact davis announced conventional wisdom seemed directly contrary one think davis clearly foreshadowed taxpayer might made intergovernmental immunity argument one taxation schemes like one issue davis schemes established much half century davis decided see harper virginia dept taxation yet single taxpayer ever challenged one schemes intergovernmental immunity grounds davis challenged michigan justice holmes correct prophecies courts fact nothing pretentious law holmes path law collected legal papers surely davis announced new law universal prophecy davis seemed taxation schemes valid examination decision davis predecessors reveals davis anything clearly foreshadowed course well established long davis nondiscrimination principle doctrine intergovernmental immunity prohibit state imposing discriminatory tax business income tax issue davis however appear discriminatory face like virginia income tax issue single federal employees retirees disfavored treatment instead federal retirees treated identically retirees single numerically insignificant exception retirees whose retirement benefits paid state whether exception rendered tax discriminatory within meaning intergovernmental immunity doctrine seems open question one hand tax scheme distinguish federal retirees state retirees former required pay state taxes retirement income latter far clear proper comparison fact strong arguments justice stevens explained thoroughly davis dissent recognized since mcculloch maryland wheat intergovernmental immunity necessary prevent interfering federal interests taxation national government recourse state ballot box limited ability protect excessive state taxes risk excessive taxation federal interests eliminated political check provided state tax falls federal government also significant group state citizens counted upon use votes keep state raising tax excessively thus placing unfair burden federal government washington emphasis added accord county fresno south carolina baker doubt taxation scheme issue davis one employed commonwealth virginia provided necessary political check exempted small group citizens state retirees subjecting remainder citizens federal retirees retirees receive income private sources nonretirees alike uniform income tax result attempt increase income taxes excessively interfere federal interests caused similarly taxed populace use votes protect interests thereby protecting interests federal government well risk abusive taxation national government good argument intergovernmental immunity problem either see davis stevens dissenting addition distinguishing taxation state retirees others including private federal retirees justifiable economic standpoint state merely collect taxes retirees pays benefits well result makes difference state retirees whether state increases state retirement benefits amount sufficient cover taxes imposes whether state offers reduced benefits makes tax free net income level retirees impact state fisc thus michigan department taxation good argument differential treatment state federal retirees directly related justified significant differenc two classes internal quotation marks omitted taxing federal retirees enhances state fisc whereas taxing state retirees recite arguments show decision davis wrong joined opinion remain view correct instead point arguments side substantial course able ancho decision precedent ante kennedy concurring part concurring judgment surely dispositive decisions novel precedent may moored determinative decision sufficiently debatable ex ante chevron oil nonretroactivity precluded arizona governing committee norris concurring seems case second chevron oil factor whether denying rule retroactive application retard operation light rule history purpose effect factor overwhelmingly favors respondent purpose intergovernmental immunity doctrine protect rights federal sovereign state interference protect private rights individuals purpose immunity confer benefits employees relieving contributing share financial support government prevent undue interference one government imposing tax burdens graves new york ex rel omitted final factor chevron oil whether decision produce substantial inequitable results applied retroactively chevron oil supra quoting cipriano city houma repeatedly declined give decisions retroactive effect unjust arizona governing committee norris supra example declined apply title vii decision retroactively noting resulting unanticipated financial burdens come time many local governments struggling meet substantial fiscal deficits powell joined burger blackmun rehnquist justification impos ing magnitude burden retroactively public concluded accord concurring see per curiam similarly declined afford plaintiff full retroactive relief los angeles dept water power manhart stevens explained etroactive liability devastating harm fall large part innocent third parties considerations exist retroactive application rulings invalidate state tax laws potential producing disruptive consequences state citizens refund required state federal law deplete state treasur ies thus threatening state current operations future plans american trucking smith plurality opinion retroactive application davis exception fiscal implications davis tates one commentator noted truly staggering hellerstein preliminary reflections mckesson american trucking associations tax notes estimate total liability exceed billion brief respondent brief state utah et al amici curiae virginia share alone exceeds million brief respondent brief state utah et al amici curiae massive liability come worse time see wall street journal july dire fiscal straits deteriorating tax base making harder get survey legislatures indicates accord harper virginia dept taxation massive liability potentially disruptive destructive impact commonwealth planning budgeting delivery essential state services swanson state state dire financial straits million refunds exacerbate bass state million refunds impose severe financial burden state citizens endanger financial integrity state impose liability virginia relied good faith taxation laws time struggling fund even basic services height unfairness james beam dissenting contended burden justified conduct liability entirely disproportionate offense deal state willfully violated constitution rather one acted entirely good faith basis unchallenged statute moreover four years question constitutional violation produced benefit approximately million million per year tr oral arg benefit accrued commonwealth individual retirees yet million million error allows imposition liability well excess million dollars liability disproportionate unconscionable finally perhaps important burden fall thoughtless government official even group retirees benefited offending exemption instead burden falls squarely backs blameless unexpecting taxpayers affected although profited exemption forced pay higher taxes deprived essential services petitioners contrast suffer hardship refused apply davis retroactively years enforced taxation schemes like commonwealth good faith years single taxpayer objected intergovernmental immunity grounds one put notice taxing schemes might constitutionally suspect denying davis retroactive relief thus deny petitioners benefit relied merely deny unanticipated windfall windfall come cost imposing hurtful consequences innocent taxpayers communities live believe substantial inequity imposing retroactive relief case like chevron factors weighs favor denying davis retroactive application iii even correct davis must applied retroactively case separate question remedy must given questions retroactivity remedy analytically distinct american trucking smith supra plurality opinion never equated retroactivity principles remedial principles justice souter explained james beam supra retroactivity matter choice law ince question whether apply old rule new one retroactivity decision issue issue federal question ashland oil caryl per curiam question remedy however quite different issue whether apply new law old law relief afforded prevailing party determined applicable law see james beam supra souter rule found apply backward may issue remedies whether party prevailing new rule obtain relief awarded rule old one question remedies first instance question state law see ibid remedial inquiry one governed state law least case originates state fact federal question regarding remedies whether relief afforded sufficient comply requirements due process see mckesson division alcoholic beverages tobacco dept business regulation issue retroactivity properly us question remedies appear within question presented asks davis may applied nonretroactively defeat federal retirees entitlement refunds pet cert moreover consideration question juncture inappropriate virginia yet consider remedy might available light davis retroactivity applicable state law inexplicably discusses question length nonetheless noting commonwealth virginia provides adequate predeprivation remedies obligation provide full retroactive refunds today ante courts take upon issue helpful guidance dictum risk creating additional confusion inadvertently suggesting constitutional absolutes exist dictum today follows course amidst discussion remedies asserts plaintiff deprived remedy confine prospective relief ante believe assertion correct years ago justice harlan recognized equities taken account determining appropriate remedy announces new rule constitutional law extent equitable considerations example reliance relevant take account determination relief appropriate given case course circumstances change law jeopardize edifice reasonably constructed foundation prevailing legal doctrine estate donnelly concurring opinion indeed members argued recognized much long ago american trucking dissenting opinion justice stevens admitted repeatedly applied chevron oil factors preclude provision monetary relief justice stevens view however chevron oil determined question remedy rather law apply new old see chevron oil progeny establish remedial principle exercise equitable discretion federal courts plurality principle applicable cases direct review see also ante reserving possibility chevron oil governs question remedies federal justice stevens view something like prevailed today seems state federal courts still retain ability exercise equitable discretion formulating appropriate relief federal claim wholly anomalous suggest federal courts permitted determine scope remedy reference chevron oil state courts barred considering equities altogether unduly restrict state flexibility law remedies estate donnelly supra harlan concurring also turn federalism head know principle law permits us restrict remedial discretion state courts without imposing similar restrictions federal courts quite opposite true question remedies state generally question state law first instance james beam souter cites single case might read precluding courts considering equities selecting remedy violation novel constitutional rule case mckesson division alcoholic beverages tobacco supra ante controlling opinion james beam explains mckesson read nothing say precludes right raise procedural bars recovery state law demonstrate reliance interests entitled consideration determining nature remedy must provided matter mckesson deal emphases added accord othing say precludes consideration individual equities deciding remedial issues particular cases true mckesson rejected due process grounds state florida equitable arguments requirement full refund opinion hold arguments irrelevant categorical matter simply held equities case insufficient support decision withhold remedy opinion expressly rejecting state equitable arguments insufficiently weighty circumstances mckesson emphasis added circumstances mckesson quite different mckesson tax imposed patently unconstitutional state florida collected taxes liquor tax statute even though already invalidated virtually identical tax given state hardly claim surprise statute declared invalid concluded state reliance presumptive validity statute insufficient preclude monetary relief ibid explained american trucking large burden retroactive relief largely irrelevant state violates constitutional norms well established existing precedent cited mckesson example plurality opinion contrary reading mckesson anomalous light immunity jurisprudence federal government example absolutely immune suit absent express waiver immunity federal officers enjoy least qualified immunity sued bivens action bivens six unknown fed narcotics agents result individual suffers constitutional deprivation hands federal officer well may access monetary relief see due process clause require full compensatory remedy whenever governmental official reasonably taxes citizen later turns unconstitutional statute officer deprives citizen bodily integrity life view going restrict authority temper hardship holding decisions nonretroactive chevron oil factors must afford courts ability avoid injustice taking equity account formulating remedy violations novel constitutional rules see fallon meltzer surely constitution permits refuse plaintiffs full relief chevron oil repeatedly done past american trucking supra canvassing practice see also supra therefore see reason similarly permit state courts reasonably consider equities exercise sound remedial discretion iv view correct approach retroactivity question us articulated chevron oil years ago refusing apply chevron oil today permits imposition grave gratuitous hardship citizens also disregards settled precedents central fairness accuracy decisional processes cast light nature regime govern contrary unnecessary innuendo concerning pure prospectivity dictum regarding remedial issues introduce still greater uncertainty disorder already chaotic area agree decision manifestly unjust results appears portend respectfully dissent swanson powers pertinent judicial decisions contrary holding immunity rationale behind precedent might suggested different result davis intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine applied plans like one issue davis anything clearly established prior davis harper virginia dept taxation davis decision established new rule law deciding issue first impression whose resolution clearly foreshadowed swanson state decision davis clearly foreshadowed bass state davis established new principle law bohn waddell davis established new principle law note rejection similarly situated taxpayer rationale davis michigan department treasury tax lawyer majority davis rejected longstanding doctrine