american trucking smith argued march decided june petitioners brought suit arkansas chancery alleging flat tax portion state highway use equalization hue tax discriminated interstate commerce violation commerce clause imposing truckers greater costs imposed truckers likely drive many miles state highways petitioners sought refund hue taxes paid affirming chancery ruling tax constitutional state relied decisions upholding flat taxes capitol greyhound lines brice aero mayflower transit board railroad mont aero mayflower transit georgia public service explicitly rejected petitioners argument complete auto transit brady overruled aero mayflower line cases june ruled american trucking scheiner unapportioned flat highway use taxes penalize travel within free trade area among violation commerce clause subsequently vacated arkansas judgment remanded case consideration light scheiner denied petitioners motion seeking inter alia order escrow hue taxes collected pending final decision merits justice blackmun circuit justice ordered escrow august state reconsidered hue tax light scheiner ruled unconstitutional however declined order refunds taxes paid august escrow order holding test enunciated chevron oil huson scheiner applied retroactively nevertheless determined tax money paid escrow august order refunded held judgment affirmed part reversed part case remanded ark affirmed part reversed part remanded justice joined chief justice justice white justice kennedy concluded arkansas misapplied chevron oil certain respects therefore scheiner applies taxation highway use pursuant hue tax thus case must remanded determine appropriate relief light mckesson division alcoholic beverages tobacco dept business regulation ante pp whether state applied chevron oil correctly federal question however important distinguish question distinct remedial question issue mckesson relief provided state tax statute held invalid commerce clause must accord federal due process principles see ante comity dictates state courts initial duty determining appropriate relief pp chevron oil nonretroactivity test scheiner apply taxation highway use prior date decided june hue tax year ending june first scheiner clearly established new principle law expressly overruling aspects aero mayflower line cases arkansas relied enacting assessing hue tax original decision upholding tax state correctly followed aero mayflower cases rather complete auto transit since latter case questioned aero mayflower line cited line approval decision subsequent complete auto transit massachusetts second purpose commerce clause dictate retroactive application scheiner since application tend deter future free trade violations hue tax enacted entirely consistent aero mayflower cases clause purpose prevent legitimate state taxation interstate commerce third applying scheiner retroactively produce substantial inequitable results especially light mckesson holding ruling tax unconstitutional commerce clause places substantial obligations provide relief invalidating hue tax potential severely burdening state current operations future plans refund required deplete state treasury entail potentially significant administrative costs retroactively increasing taxes favored taxpayers also entail administrative costs point run afoul due process clause mckesson ante state easily foresee invalidation tax statutes burden state operations may merit little concern see mckesson ante unjust however impose burden state relied valid existing precedent enacting implementing tax pp however conclusion scheiner applies prospectively protect hue taxes paid state tax year beginning july state refusal order refunds hue taxes paid prior justice blackmun escrow order arose misapprehension force chevron oil scheiner applies prospectively flat taxing highway use date decision regardless taxes use actually collected holding otherwise result similarly situated taxpayers receiving different remedies depending solely fortuitously date paid tax pp dissent criticisms decision lack merit first claim decision unjust treats taxpayers case differently scheiner unpersuasive since case resolves retroactivity question considered scheiner concerned state ruling constitutionality certain tax statutes remanded determination retroactivity remedial issues second claim consistently applied new decisions retroactively civil cases pending direct review inaccurate characterization since review decisions shows consistently applied principles underlying retroactivity doctrine enunciated chevron oil rather approach suggested dissent see cipriano city houma third contrary dissent assertion never equated retroactivity principles remedial principles instead considered nonretroactivity doctrine determining past precedent applied case better understood part doctrine stare decisis rather part law remedies see great northern sunburst oil refining finally reasons adopting per se rule retroactivity criminal cases see griffith kentucky primarily provide expanded procedural protections criminal defendants applicable civil sphere nonretroactivity functions avoid injustice hardship civil litigants justifiably relied prior law see chevron oil supra distinctions compel rejection dissent invitation abandon nonretroactivity doctrine civil arena criminal arena pp justice scalia concluded prospective decisionmaking reconciled scope judicial power article iii nonetheless negative commerce clause jurisprudence basis text commerce clause see american trucking scheiner scalia concurring part dissenting part scheiner therefore wrongly decided reason apply scheiner doctrine stare decisis purpose underlying doctrine protect settled expectations justifies holding arkansas violated constitution imposing hue tax scheiner announced justify holding arkansas violated constitution imposing hue tax scheiner overruled earlier cases arkansas presumably relied apply scheiner retroactively solely name stare decisis turn purpose stare decisis accordingly decision affirmed respect taxes reversed respect taxes pp andrew frey reargued cause petitioners briefs kenneth geller mark levy andrew pincus peter kumpe daniel barney robert digges laurie baulig william busker raymond randolph reargued cause respondents briefs daniel prywes bruce stewart herschel friday clark robert shafer robert wilson goodloe ii christopher parker briefs amici curiae urging reversal filed crow tribe indians daniel rosenfelt committee state taxation council state chambers commerce jean walker william peltz national private truck council richard allen robert hirsch tax executives institute timothy mccormally briefs amici curiae urging affirmance filed commonwealth pennsylvania et al ernest preate attorney general pennsylvania bryan barbin deputy attorney general john knorr iii chief deputy attorney general louis rovelli executive deputy attorney general attorneys general respective follows douglas baily alaska duane woodard colorado linley pearson indiana joseph curran maryland hubert humphrey iii minnesota robert spire nebraska brian mckay nevada james rhode island joseph meyer wyoming national conference state legislatures et al benna ruth solomon charles rothfeld briefs amici curiae filed state california et al john van de kamp attorney general california richard finn supervising deputy attorney general eric coffill jim jones attorney general idaho marc racicot attorney general montana nicholas spaeth attorney general north dakota jim mattox attorney general texas paul van dam attorney general utah state vermont et al jeffrey amestoy attorney general vermont thomas viall assistant attorney general peter perretti attorney general new jersey mary hamill deputy attorney general clarine nardi riddle acting attorney general connecticut jane comerford assistant attorney general transportation cabinet commonwealth kentucky frederic cowan attorney general kentucky stephen reeder special assistant attorney general patricia foley justice announced judgment delivered opinion chief justice justice white justice kennedy join case decide whether decision american trucking scheiner applies retroactively taxation highway use prior date decision petitioners brought suit chancery pulaski county arkansas challenging constitutionality newly enacted arkansas highway use equalization tax act hue ark acts ark code ann formerly codified ark stat ann supp commerce clause federal constitution art cl hue tax required trucks operating arkansas highways gross weight pounds pay alternatively annual flat tax tax per mile traveled arkansas trip permit fee per miles effectively hue taxed first miles annual highway use heavy trucks point became advantageous pay flat tax trucks based arkansas likely travel many miles state highways heavy trucks based state petitioners argued hue impermissibly discriminated interstate commerce imposing truckers greater costs imposed truckers remedy alleged federal constitutional violation petitioners argued art arkansas constitution required state refund hue taxes petitioners paid see app filed mar pending determination merits constitutional challenge petitioners sought preliminary injunction placing hue tax revenues escrow prevent revenues deposited state treasury distributed state agencies chancery denial petitioners motion preliminary injunction affirmed interlocutory appeal arkansas american trucking gray ark proceedings chancery upheld constitutionality hue state affirmed american trucking gray ark relied decisions capitol greyhound lines brice aero mayflower transit board railroad aero mayflower transit georgia public service hold flat tax portion hue neither excessive unreasonable therefore violate commerce clause arkansas explicitly rejected petitioners argument decision complete auto transit brady overruled aero mayflower line cases petitioners appealed arkansas decision held case pending decision scheiner involved similar constitutional challenge two flat highway use taxes enacted commonwealth pennsylvania scheiner decided june held unapportioned flat taxes imposed pennsylvania penalize travel within free trade area among applied internal consistency test see armco hardesty concluded state imposed flat taxes privilege making commercial entrances territory conceivable doubt commerce among deterred recognized scheiner arkansas appearing amicus curiae case one number enacted flat highway use taxes see dissenting accordingly three days deciding scheiner vacated judgment arkansas gray remanded case consideration light scheiner american trucking gray motion petitioners sought expedite efforts state courts obtain injunctive relief enforcement hue tax pursuant former rule justice blackmun shortened time issuance mandate arkansas ordered mandate issue july petitioners thereupon sought enjoin collection hue tax order escrow taxes collected pending reconsideration gray arkansas motions seeking accomplish end denied petitioners returned opinion issued august justice blackmun acting circuit justice concluded significant possibility arkansas find hue tax unconstitutional scheiner failing note probable jurisdiction strike hue tax american trucking gray chambers concluded substantial risk petitioners able obtain refund hue tax ultimately declared unconstitutional petitioners suffer irreparable injury absent injunctive relief ibid justice blackmun therefore ordered arkansas escrow hue taxes collected final decision merits case reached october arkansas legislature met special session repealed hue tax replaced tax requiring heavy trucks pay per mile travel arkansas highways see ark code ann subsequently opinion delivered march arkansas reconsidered hue tax light scheiner ruled unconstitutional american trucking gray ark however declined order tax refunds petitioners hue taxes paid prior justice blackmun august escrow order arkansas reasoned petitioners entitled refunds hue tax payments apply scheiner decision retroactively order determine whether treat scheiner state applied test enunciated chevron oil huson first arkansas ruled scheiner established new rule law respect flat highway use taxes overruling aero mayflower line cases arkansas concluded reasonably relied cases originally upholding hue tax petitioners commerce clause challenge second held prospective application scheiner effectuate purpose commerce clause secure equal treatment intrastate commerce thus create area free trade among regard arkansas relied heavily decision washington denying tax refunds determination decision tyler pipe industries washington state dept revenue applied retroactively see national department revenue en banc difficult understand retroactive application encourage free trade among since whatever chill imposed interstate trade past app dism third arkansas held inequitable order total refund hue taxes already paid petitioners state treasury reasoned petitioners driven heavy trucks arkansas highways total refund allow unconscionable windfall far excess fair recovery discrimination may suffered due tax constitute unfair treatment truckers paid tax seek refund arkansas determined however hue tax money paid escrow justice blackmun august order refunded petitioners money placed state treasury spent budgeted future expenditure justice hickman dissented believing petitioners entitled refunds date scheiner decided certainly later asked july place funds escrow petition rehearing petitioners modified remedial request urged arkansas refund hue taxes paid excess taxes petitioners paid based state petition rehearing denied petitioners thereupon sought writ certiorari presented questions whether scheiner applied retroactively whether even scheiner decision retroactive still entitled refunds taxes paid decided scheiner tax year began scheiner decision refunds taxes paid scheiner decision justice blackmun escrow order granted petition certiorari consolidated case mckesson division alcoholic beverages tobacco dept business regulation also decide today see ante affirm part reverse part remand consideration ii held state taxes unconstitutional past practice abstain deciding remedial effects holding relief provided state must accord federal constitutional requirements see mckesson ante entrusted state courts initial duty determining appropriate relief see scheiner tyler pipe supra williams vermont bacchus imports dias exxon eagerton reasons arisen perception based considerations comity take upon complex area state tax structures determine apply holding refund issues essentially issues remedy imposition tax unconstitutionally discriminated interstate commerce addressed state courts also federal constitutional issues involved may well intertwined consideration obviated issues state law also resolution issues required may necessitate record far made case reluctant therefore address first instance tyler pipe supra quoting bacchus supra determination whether constitutional decision retroactive whether decision applies conduct events occurred date decision matter federal law questions state law issue state courts generally authority determine retroactivity decisions see great northern sunburst oil refining think federal constitution voice upon subject whether state may decline give decisions retroactive effect retroactive applicability constitutional decision however every bit much federal question particular federal constitutional provisions mean guarantee whether denied chapman california order ensure uniform application decisions construing constitutional requirements prevent denying curtailing federally protected rights consistently required state courts adhere retroactivity decisions see michigan payne holding state erred applying north carolina pearce retroactively invalidate resentencing proceeding occurring prior date decision pearce arsenault massachusetts holding state erred determining white maryland requiring accused represented counsel preliminary hearing apply retroactively petitioner although recently determined new rules criminal procedure must applied retroactively cases pending direct review yet final see griffith kentucky retroactivity decisions civil context continues governed standard announced chevron oil see also johnson case arkansas decided chevron oil decision scheiner need apply prospectively decision presents federal question arkansas apply chevron oil correctly petitioners properly observed oral argument question case tr oral rearg important distinguish question retroactivity issue case distinct remedial question issue mckesson ante taxpayers involuntarily pay tax unconstitutional existing precedents relief affected taxpayers entitled matter federal law decision mckesson indicates federal law sets certain minimum requirements must meet may exceed providing appropriate relief decide certain respects arkansas misapplied chevron oil therefore decision scheiner applies taxation highway use pursuant hue tax must remand case arkansas determine appropriate relief light mckesson using chevron oil test consider first application scheiner taxation highway use prior june date decided scheiner hue tax year ending june test three parts 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 must weigh merits demerits case looking prior history rule question purpose effect whether retrospective operation retard operation finally must weig inequity imposed retroactive application decision produce substantial inequitable results applied retroactively ample basis cases avoiding injustice hardship holding nonretroactivity citations internal quotations omitted conclusion scheiner established new principle law area dormant commerce clause jurisprudence necessarily end inquiry see florida long arizona governing comm tax deferred annuity deferred compensation plans norris concurring equally clear us however purpose commerce clause dictate retroactive application scheiner equitable considerations tilt balance toward nonretroactive application observed scheiner commerce clause force created area trade free interference quoting boston stock exchange state tax petitioners argue retroactive application scheiner tend deter future free trade violations several strong parochial incentives commit discussed however hue tax entirely consistent aero mayflower line cases purpose commerce clause prevent legitimate state taxation interstate commerce see complete auto transit finally third prong chevron oil test consider equities retroactive application scheiner decision today mckesson makes clear state tax statute held invalid commerce clause state obligated provide relief consistent federal due process principles see ante state comes constitutional obligation mckesson establishes equitable considerations play limited role delineating scope relief ante course occasion consider equities retroactive application new law mckesson case involved application settled commerce clause precedent see ante light mckesson holding ruling tax unconstitutionally discriminatory commerce clause places substantial obligations provide relief threshold determination whether new decision apply retroactively crucial one requiring hard look whether retroactive application unjust initial stage question whether equitable considerations outweigh obligation provide relief constitutional violation cf ante whether constitutional violation first place careful consideration equities persuades us scheiner apply retroactively unlike mckesson state enacted tax scheme virtually identical hawaii scheme invalidated bacchus imports dias ante thus state hardly claim surprise florida courts invalidation scheme state promulgated implemented tax scheme reliance aero mayflower precedents light precedents legislators good reason suppose enactment hue tax violate oath uphold constitution state every reason consider bound precedents uphold tax constitutional challenge similarly state tax collection authorities justified relying state enactments valid precedents particularly enactments upheld state highest state easily foresee invalidation tax statutes reliance interests may merit little concern see mckesson ante contrast state expected foresee decision overturn established precedents inequity unsettling actions taken reliance precedents apparent although point burden retroactive application scheiner place arkansas precisely determined clear invalidation state hue tax potentially disruptive consequences state citizens refund required state federal law deplete state treasury thus threatening state current operations future plans presumably mckesson state required calculate refund portion tax found scheiner discriminate interstate commerce attendant potentially significant administrative costs entail mckesson makes clear state also attempt provide relief retroactively increasing taxes favored taxpayers cure violation entail substantial administrative costs point run independent constitutional restrictions see ante eyond temporal point retroactive imposition significant tax burden may harsh oppressive transgress constitutional limitation moreover approach unfairly penalize favored taxpayers state failure foresee overrule established precedent although future may able protect fiscal stability imposing procedural requirements taxpayer actions see mckesson ante prospective safeguards affect inequities retroactive application scheiner arkansas faulted continuing rely statute highest state upheld constitutionality tax sum conclude applying scheiner retroactively produce substantial inequitable results chevron oil invalidation hue tax potential severely burdening state operations burden may largely irrelevant state violates constitutional norms well established existing precedent see mckesson think unjust impose burden state relied valid existing precedent enacting implementing tax accordingly conclude scheiner apply hue taxation highway use prior june hue tax year ending june dissent suggests federal courts weigh equitable considerations determining scope relief federal award precisely backwards previously discussed mckesson makes plain equitable considerations limited significance constitutional violation found dissent analysis ultimately makes clear see post suggested approach effectively eliminate consideration equities entirely case judicial decision invalidating state taxation scheme represented clear break prior precedent inconsistent nonretroactivity doctrine work real inequitable hardships many cases petitioners argue equities always favor applying decisions retroactively decisions burden governmental entity rely owen city independence proposition local governments permitted disavow liability injury begotten owen applicable considerations case addressed question whether congress intended municipality good faith immunity actions brought decision owen simply construed statute consideration legislative history immunity traditionally accorded municipalities forerunner enacted delineation scope liability statute designed permit suit governmental entities officials provides little guidance determining fairest way apply decisions indeed policy concerns involved quite distinct owen discerned according municipalities special immunity liability violations constitutional rights best serve goals even rights clearly established violation occurred determination merely makes municipalities like private individuals responsible anticipating developments law noted liability motivate city elected officials consider whether decision comports constitutional mandates weigh risk violation might result award damages public treasury analysis apply decision clearly breaks precedent type departure definition public officials anticipate responsibility anticipate see rodriguez de quijas express determining whether decision applied retroactively consistently given great weight reliance interests parties affected changes law see cipriano city houma significant hardships imposed cities bondholders connected municipal utilities decision today given full retroactive effect extent retrospective application decision burdens government ability plan carry programs application injures government constituents concerns long informed retroactivity decisions used technique prospective overruling accompanied stay judgment avoid disabling congress bankruptcy scheme see northern pipeline construction marathon pipe line refused invalidate retrospectively administrative actions decisions federal election commission see buckley valeo also declined provide retrospective remedies substantially disrupt governmental programs functions see lemon kurtzman lemon ii tate officials deal entitled rely presumptively valid state statute enacted good faith means plainly unlawful plurality opinion see also reynolds sims nder certain circumstances impending election imminent state election machinery already progress equitable considerations might justify withholding granting immediately effective relief legislative apportionment case even though existing apportionment scheme found invalid allen state bd elections retrospective invalidation state tax lawful precedents threatens similar disruption governmental operations therefore refusal retroactively invalidate legislation lawful enacted accord previous determinations best give effect new constitutional decisions date scheiner decision petitioners paid hue taxes tax year beginning july arkansas ruled state collection payments constitutional date justice blackmun escrow order therefore declined order refunds hue taxes paid escrow petitioners argue entitled refunds payments even scheiner applied retroactively hue tax payments made secure privilege driving heavy trucks arkansas highways july june petitioners argue question whether scheiner applies collection hue taxes depend occurrence taxed transaction enjoyment taxed benefit remittance tax brief petitioners filed otherwise petitioners contend similarly situated hue taxpayers receive different remedies depending solely fortuitously date individual taxpayers remitted tax agree course fundamental tenet retroactivity doctrine prospective application new principle law begins date decision announcing principle see florida long norris concurring lemon ii supra chevron oil phoenix kolodziejski tenet retroactivity however define conduct scheiner prospectively applies apply flat taxing highway use collection taxes highway use date decision think apparent scheiner applies flat taxation highway use date decision true regardless taxes use actually collected arkansas collected taxes highway use occurring required tax payment date prospective decision taxes unconstitutional preclude state collecting date decision taxes highway use occurred decision announced principle applies converse true hold scheiner apply prospectively flat highway taxation permissible highway use occurred date decision contrary rule give perverse incentive collect taxes far advance occurrence taxable transaction also penalize immediately collect taxes nevertheless plan operations assumption ultimately collect taxes accrued case taxpayer advantaged sense certain tax payments made unconstitutional statute remedies may order hypothetical converse case state advantaged sense may continue collect taxes date decision finding tax prospectively unconstitutional cases petitioners correctly note critical event prospectivity occurrence underlying transaction payment money therefor brief petitioners filed cf lemon ii supra thus petitioners correct hue taxes paid state tax year regardless whether paid announced scheiner protected conclusion scheiner applies prospectively regard arkansas holding petitioners entitled refunds hue taxes paid arose misapplication chevron oil face state opinion discern reason apart misapprehension force chevron oil caused deny petitioners request hue tax refunds accordingly aspect arkansas opinion must reversed iii dissent claims decision today treats petitioners case less favorably taxpayers scheiner post challenges retroactivity doctrine fundamentally inequitable dissent asserts judicial integrity require apply new decisions cases pending direct review also consistently followed practice civil cases raising constitutional claims post dissent insists chevron oil enunciate principles retroactivity rather merely exercise remedial powers post explain arguments miss mark first today resolve issue considered scheiner neither unfairly favored litigants scheiner disfavored litigants us second review decisions shows consistently applied retroactivity doctrine enunciated chevron oil rather approach suggested dissent dissent recharacterization precedents disregards theoretical underpinnings chevron oil doctrine concerns led develop retain doctrine third contrary dissent assertion never equated retroactivity principles remedial principles finally different functions retroactivity doctrine criminal civil spheres lead us reject dissent invitation abandon nonretroactivity doctrine civil arena criminal arena dissent claim today decision unjust treats taxpayers case differently taxpayers scheiner post unpersuasive taxpayers scheiner challenged state ruling constitutionality certain tax statutes taxpayers case challenge state ruling nonretroactivity decision done nothing resolve separate issues raised case scheiner reversed judgment pennsylvania upheld constitutionality two pennsylvania tax statutes decided constitutional issue presented us remanded case pennsylvania consider whether ruling applied retroactively decide remedial issues decide issues retroactivity relief decision guarantee taxpayers state retroactively apply decision provide particular relief remand scheiner pennsylvania free consider issue retroactivity arkansas state case arkansas already passed question whether arkansas tax statutes unconstitutional issue us petitioners claim involves second distinct issue retroactivity scheiner civil arena generally considered question retroactivity separate problem one need resolved decision see consolidated foods unger blackmun concurring properly vacated remanded case consideration light kremer chemical construction remand respondent free argue kremer apply retroactively simpson union oil reserving question whether application rule announced opinion might warranted thus obligation consider retroactivity scheiner case today consider resolve issue properly raised presented case dissent claim consistently applied new decisions retroactively civil cases pending direct review inaccurate characterization cases fact little proposal sub silentio overrule chevron oil theory retroactivity identified dissent formulated justice harlan concurrence estate donnelly post justice harlan urged adopt rule new decision always apply parties cases pending direct review unless transaction beyond challenge either statute limitations run rights parties fixed litigation become res judicata presumably rule retroactivity also constrain lower courts see griffith kentucky practical matter course hear case pending direct review apply new rule fulfill judicial responsibility instructing lower courts apply new rule retroactively cases yet final dissent approach prevailed civil arena retroactivity question ever arise determine whether case properly apply current law however review civil decisions reveals followed different approach determining apply decisions prospectively principles underlying civil retroactivity doctrine distilled criminal civil cases considering issue concludes decision applied retroactively decision usually based perception application harsh disruptive effect relied prior law see chevron oil order protect reliance interests first identifies defines operative conduct events affected new decision lower courts considering applicability new decision pending cases instructed follows operative conduct events occurred decision apply law prevailing time conduct operative conduct events occurred decision reliance old precedent unjustified apply new law see generally schaefer control sunbursts techniques prospective overruling rev describing technique expressly relied doctrine criminal case jenkins delaware observed number decisions prior jenkins declined apply new rule retroactively point initial reliance point law enforcement officials relied upon practices yet proscribed occurred prior date decision see halliday new rule applicable guilty pleas accepted date decision desist new rule applicable electronic surveillances conducted date decision fuller alaska new rule applicable tainted evidence introduced date decision jenkins concluded focusing attention element reliance making nonretroactivity decisions consistent fundamental justification applying newly enunciated constitutional principles retroactively quoting schaefer supra relied reasoning civil arena decisions invalidating state election provisions focused conduct events invalidated decisions cipriano city houma example struck louisiana provisions elections violative equal protection clause however avoid frustrating expectations parties relied prior law held courts invalidate state election bonds bond authorization process completed election timely challenged state law bonds ready issued date decision cipriano see apply decision case prospectively apply state law time challenging election result expired cases brought within time specified state law challenging election yet final thus decision apply authorization issue securities legally complete date decision emphasis added although looked state limitations period determine authorization process complete hold period adopted time bar raising equal protection challenges state elections federal rather held bonds ready issuance prior date cipriano invalidated rule established decision similarly phoenix kolodziejski held ruling state election laws issue unconstitutional applied retroactively bond authorization process completed prior date decision see ur decision case apply authorizations general obligations bonds final june date decision see also hill stone holding decision apply authorization issue securities became final prior date decision practice focusing operative conduct events implicit retroactivity decisions england louisiana state bd medical examiners established new rule party remitted state courts district abstention order subsequently return district voluntarily litigated federal claims state apply rule case pending individuals relied prior law litigating federal claims state allen state bd elections declined set aside elections conducted pursuant invalid election laws operative event elections valid law preceding decision allen considering retroactive applicability decisions newly defining statutes limitations focused action taken reliance old limitation period usually filing action litigant filed claim timely prior limitation period held new statute limitations bar suit see saint francis college chevron oil cases indicate followed dissent approach civil sphere none cases discussed indicate critical factor determining retroactive applicability decision time principles res judicata time bar precluded litigation rather retroactivity doctrine obliged courts apply old law litigants operative conduct events occurred prior new decision case merely apply principles civil retroactivity define operative conduct arkansas flat taxation highway use reliance cases supra decline apply scheiner retroactively invalidate taxation highway use prior date decision striving recharacterize precedents dissent makes error equating decision apply rule retroactively judicial choice remedy post makes plain mckesson important difference constitutional decision applies renders state tax invalid due process equitable considerations generally dictate scope relief offered retroactivity decisions whether civil criminal sphere support dissent assertion retroactivity doctrine remedial principle indeed lemon ii specifically recognized principles retroactivity helpful controlling deciding scope federal remedy guidelines expressed linkletter walker applying retroactivity doctrine helpful problem linkletter progeny precisely us considering whether apply new constitutional rule criminal law reviewing judgments conviction obtained prior standard problem instant case essentially one relating appropriate scope federal equitable remedies problem arising enforcement state statute period declared unconstitutional true temporal scope injunction brought parties back dispute calls play values unlike underlying linkletter progeny however state issue fact remains asked reexamine district evaluation proper means implementing equitable decree opinion burger citation omitted especially light today holding mckesson dissent view doctrine civil retroactivity remedial principle surprise many commentators appellate courts see note confusion federal courts application chevron test decisions rev state courts considered chevron oil exactly always understood doctrine set rules determining past precedent applied case chevron oil better understood part doctrine stare decisis rather part law remedies nonretroactivity first characterized justice cardozo great northern sunburst oil refining considering state power apply decisions prospectively justice cardozo asserted occasion consider whether division time effects decision sound unsound application doctrine stare decisis known common law sound unsound involved denial right protected federal constitution state defining limits adherence precedent may make choice principle forward operation relation backward may say decisions highest though later overruled law none less intermediate transactions proposing extend retroactivity doctrine recently adopted criminal sphere civil cases dissent assumes reasons adopting per se rule retroactivity griffith kentucky equally applicable civil context important distinctions retroactive application civil criminal decisions make griffith rationale far less compelling civil sphere adopting per se rule retroactivity criminal cases griffith relied essence single justification unfair apply different rules criminal procedure two defendants whose cases pending direct review time see expounding theory explain pendency defendant case direct review critical factor determining applicability new decisions least arguable justice white pointed dissent speed cases proceed criminal justice system key factor determining whether otherwise identically situated defendants may subject different constitutional rules internal quotation marks omitted consider whether reliance interests law enforcement officials make retroactive application new decisions inequitable although factor key consideration prior cases see jenkins delaware stovall denno focusing solely pendency case rather reliance interests either defendant government griffith implicitly rejected rationale prior retroactivity doctrine new decisions applied retroactively frustrate expectations parties justifiably relied prior law analysis griffith must understood context period much retroactivity doctrine evolved new rules criminal procedure expanded protections available criminal defendants see generally beytagh supra therefore whenever determined retroactive application new rule inequitable effect according government reliance interests weight defendant interests receiving benefit rule see coin currency brennan concurring hen new procedural rule cast substantial doubt upon reliability determinations guilt criminal cases denied rule retroactive effect contrary decision impose substantial burden upon judicial system quoting williams griffith adoption per se rule retroactivity thus understood rejection approach favor providing expanded procedural protections criminal defendants new theory defendant whose conviction yet become final given benefit new decision regardless additional burden might place law enforcement authorities analogous reasons adopting per se rule retroactivity civil context either party may benefit application chevron oil rule new decisions likely favor civil defendants civil plaintiffs policy reason protecting one class litigants another moreover even party deprived full retroactive benefit new decision may receive relief case example petitioners benefited prospective invalidation arkansas tax ruling scheiner applicable taxation highway use date decision case criminal defendant hand generally interested one remedy reversal conviction prospective invalidation rule relied securing conviction assist criminal defendant way griffith criticism nonretroactivity gives benefit new rule chance beneficiary permit stream similar cases subsequently flow unaffected new rule citation omitted force civil context although dissent echoes criticism post may fairly aimed cases reversed conviction defendant decision later determined rule applicable retroactively see desist stovall denno supra dissent failed cite single civil case comparable inequitable treatment occurred case example provide benefit litigants scheiner denied petitioners see supra contrary dissent assertions post use civil retroactivity principles result unequal treatment similarly situated litigants chevron oil makes clear purpose doctrine avoid injustice hardship civil litigants justifiably relied prior law quoting cipriano city houma light aim two parties similarly situated relied old law date decision litigant relied old law similarly situated relevant way one regardless whether cases pending direct review griffith rationale unpersuasive civil context see reason abandon chevron oil test constitution prohibit application decisions prospectively see solem stumes williams supra opinion white ever held nonretroactivity violates article iii requirement adjudicate cases controversies compare stovall denno linkletter walker desist supra douglas dissenting utility retroactivity doctrine cushioning sometimes inequitable disruptive effects decisions clear inequities dissent alleges caused doctrine illusory reasons decline dissent invitation abandon longstanding precedent accordingly respects apart disposition hue tax payments affirm judgment arkansas however position determine precisely nature extent relief petitioners entitled hue tax payments determination already observed lies state courts first instance therefore reverse remand aspect case arkansas order permit determine appropriate relief inconsistent decision today mckesson petitioners payment hue taxes whether made date scheiner decision ordered footnotes see corr retroactivity study doctrine applied rev traynor quo vadis prospective overruling question judicial responsibility hastings beytagh ten years critique proposal rev schaefer control sunbursts techniques prospective overruling rev state mckesson ante appellate jurisdiction case one barred eleventh amendment justice scalia concurring judgment agree justice arkansas held violated constitution imposing arkansas highway use equalization tax hue decision american trucking scheiner yet held violated constitution imposing tax scheiner announced reasons however diverge fundamental way requires explanation share justice stevens perception prospective decisionmaking incompatible judicial role say law prescribe shall framing issue purport decide today whether decision scheiner shall apply retroactively presupposes view decisions creating law opposed declaring law already view contrary understanding judicial power art iii common traditional one one justify courts denying force effect unconstitutional enactments duly elected legislatures see marbury madison cranch exercise judicial power asserted scheiner hold governmental act unconstitutional announce forbid constitution forbids case constitutionality state statute placed issue question whether decision applies way law applies question whether constitution interpreted decision invalidates statute since constitution change year year since conform decisions decisions supposed conform notion interpretation constitution particular decision take prospective form make sense either enforcement statute issue scheiner occurred decision unconstitutional enforcement identical statutes whether occurring decision scheiner wrong issue whether apply decision needs attention dissented scheiner case elsewhere registered disagreement negative commerce clause jurisprudence one typically destabilizing instance see scheiner supra scalia dissenting tyler pipe industries washington state dept revenue scalia concurring part dissenting part disagreement rests view means mine alone jurisprudence quagmire quoting northwestern portland cement minnesota arbitrary conclusory irreconcilable constitutional text since inception last century quoting currie constitution first hundred years worsened age believe jurisprudence takes us avowedly beyond judicial role text take authority act field provides congress shall power regulate commerce among several art cl nothing grant power congress courts grant congress read exclusive even casual comparison provisions article reveal see tyler pipe industries supra commerce clause therefore may properly thought prohibit state regulation commerce indirectly extent congress exercise commerce clause powers state legislation supremacy clause art vi cl prohibit certain form state regulation conflict federal statute saying effect presume congress silence exercise function means prohibit state regulation way explain state legislation according negative commerce clause jurisprudence violate constitution nonetheless authorized federal statute congress disagree appraisal appropriate role relevant field see scheiner supra presuming law congressional silence quite different normal judicial task interpreting applying text determining applying tradition principal question asked course reasonable federal regulator commerce intend different question legislator must ask explains think body decisional law changed regularly negative commerce clause jurisprudence change almost natural state natural state legislation constantly changing national economy also explains exercise negative commerce clause function ultimately cast us essentially legislative role weighing imponderable balancing importance state interest importance different citizens assess differently degree impairment commerce see cts dynamics america edgar mite pike bruce church negative commerce clause inherently unpredictable unpredictable applied standards poorly inconsistently requires us lower courts accommodate like legislature inevitably shifting variables national economy whatever expounding area constitution negative commerce clause jurisprudence inherently unstable repeatedly result upsetting settled expectations fellow dissenters scheiner seek avoid consequence present case precisely seek avoid extending consequence beyond unfortunate state scheiner similar laws embracing rule prospective decisionmaking appeal approach negative commerce clause field making essentially legislative judgments make legislative fashion prospectively subject course limitation requirement article iii cl surely requires retroactivity respect parties immediately decline adopt solution discussed mode action fundamentally beyond judicial power although negative commerce clause decisionmaking well two wrongs make right follow must conclude arkansas hue taxes unconstitutional given disagreement negative commerce clause jurisprudence thing possibly lead conclusion scheiner status precedent although apply negative commerce clause decisional theories new matters coming us stare decisis say respect needs stability legal system normally cause adhere decision already rendered unconstitutionality particular type state law law indistinguishable scheiner normally suppress earlier view matter acquiesce opinion unconstitutional something wrong however must take position respect taxes issue present case believing arkansas fully entitled impose taxes nonetheless make fifth vote penalize done even period opinions announced lawfully impose injustice name stare decisis interest protecting settled expectations absurd though believe option suspending principle retroactive judicial decisionmaking doctrine stare decisis flexible command think sensible understanding requires vote contrary view law vote impose upon litigant liability think wrong also upset litigant settled expectations earlier decision stare decisis effect claimed scheiner overruled prior law turn doctrine stare decisis purpose exists think appropriate words indeed think necessary judge whose view law causes dissent overruling persist position least vote necessary disposition case respect action taken overruling occurred accordingly affirm decision respect arkansas hue taxes imposed view constitutional reverse decision respect arkansas hue taxes imposed unlawful virtue decision thus concur judgment justice stevens justice brennan justice marshall justice blackmun join dissenting case presents two issues whether flat tax features arkansas hue tax violate commerce clause federal constitution whether petitioners entitled tax refund former ordinarily pure question federal law resolution applied uniformly throughout nation latter mixed question state federal law plurality today however inverts analysis deceptive simplicity plurality rules constitutionality vel non flat tax turns whether state officials particular state anticipated tax violate constitution ante availability refund even otherwise required state law ante rests determination matter federal law whether retrospective relief threaten disruption governmental operations ante analysis wrong counts petitioners entitled adjudication constitutionality arkansas tax best current understanding federal law regardless good faith arkansas legislators question remedy refund hand addressed today mckesson division alcoholic beverages tobacco dept business regulation ante decided us state first instance plurality contrary conclusion supported nothing misreading opinion chevron oil huson arkansas enacted highway use equalization tax act hue ark acts ark code ann march act became effective july discriminated interstate carriers taxing higher effective tax rate carriers operated intrastate vehicles weight class covered act required display certificate evidencing compliance tax operation vehicle violation act subjected user criminal sanctions graduated scale fines act contained method challenging tax assessments making payment protest may effective date hue act tax revenues collected petitioners filed suit pulaski county chancery challenging constitutionality act state law commerce clause federal constitution art cl arkansas adheres rule taxes voluntarily paid recovered see county searcy stephenson ark brunson board directors crawford county ark petitioners however invoked arkansas constitutional provision governing illegal exactions ark art arguing matter state law state recent ruling little rock cash ark cert denied taxpayers paid taxes date complaint deemed paid taxes involuntarily substantive constitutional claims tracked raised truckers similar pennsylvania tax enacted see american trucking bloom commw chancery denied petitioners motion preliminary injunction concluding tax constitutional record trial merits ruled state favor opinion delivered april state affirmed holding tax constitutional decisions aero mayflower transit georgia pub serv aero mayflower transit board railroad american trucking gray ark simultaneously pennsylvania reached similar conclusion respect state statute american trucking scheiner noted probable jurisdiction pennsylvania case see american trucking scheiner held arkansas case pending decision scheiner june reversed judgment state scheiner concluding erred upholding constitutionality pennsylvania unapportioned marker fee axle tax american trucking scheiner see also dissenting reasoned flat taxes violated commerce clause exert ed inexorable hydraulic pressure interstate businesses ply trade within state enacted measure rather among several quoting art cl rejected argument considerations stare decisis required adherence series cases appeared support flat tax insofar aero mayflower cases cases upon arkansas relied provided authority judgment pennsylvania held precedents longer support broad proposition every flat tax privilege using state highways must upheld even clearly discriminatory effect commerce reason commerce interstate character therefore remanded consideration various remedial issues resolution scheiner bore constitutionality taxes challenged case remanded arkansas reconsideration light opinion american trucking gray remand arkansas reconsider constitutionality taxes assessed prior scheiner rather held matter federal law ruling scheiner retroactive apply taxes assessed applied highway use prior date decision american trucking gray ark taxes assessed date scheiner indeed date justice blackmun order taxes state continued collect state hold petitioners presented meritorious constitutional challenge plurality today explains judgment arkansas constituted decision whatever else arkansas law might require petitioners receive tax refunds scheiner retroactive test chevron oil ante hue tax simply unlawful date justice blackmun order state theory state repealed statute date scheiner decided state never violated constitution petitioners never obtained adjudication taxes unconstitutional ii numerous civil cases past several decades declined give retroactive effect decisions announcing new rules law cases arising federal involving application statutes limitations scope equitable relief required us distinguish two senses retroactivity may used decision may denied retroactive effect sense conduct occurring prior date decision judged current law may denied retroactive effect sense independent principles law limit relief may provide current law since case arising federal substantive law applicable course conduct scope permissible relief present federal questions unnecessary distinguish two senses retroactivity case comes us state requires us first time expressly distinguish retroactivity rule retroactivity remedial principle whereas cases arising federal applicable law type relief subject plenary review cases state mandate limited see fox film muller murdock city memphis wall decision state substantive matter federal law presents pure federal question see martin hunter lessee wheat decision appropriate remedy presents mixed question state federal law although federal constitution constrains minimum remedy state may provide see mckesson ante arsenault massachusetts chapman california gives authority review decision particular remedy constitutionally compelled see delaware van arsdall michigan payne ordinarily limit state power give decision remedial effect greater federal provide see bacchus imports dias los angeles lyons chapman harlan dissenting moines national bank bennett remedial effect decision federal constitutional law given first instance matter state law see ante citing scheiner tyler pipe industries washington state dept revenue williams vermont bacchus imports dias exxon eagerton principles elucidate disposition scheiner explain similar result appropriate scheiner held flat tax substantially similar arkansas hue tax violated commerce clause decision resolved question us lawfulness flat tax assessed years since federal constitutional challenge presented state remedy since state opportunity determine appropriate relief federal state law reversed state determination merits remanded case consider whether ruling applied retroactively decide remedial issues emphasis added disposition left state room apply remedy first instance avoid force mandate declare taxes challenge constitutional first place ante similar disposition appropriate judgment scheiner leaves doubt arkansas hue tax unconstitutional justice blackmun concluded ruling petitioners application establishment escrow account taxes challenged petitioners substantially similar effect pennsylvania unapportioned flat taxes invalidated scheiner work deter interstate commerce american trucking gray state held plurality today acknowledges arkansas hue tax like pennsylvania flat taxes violates command commerce clause exerting pressure interstate businesses ply trade within state boundaries opinion arkansas hue tax also violated constitution decision scheiner petitioners entitled decision effect like taxpayers scheiner petitioners timely challenged constitutionality state flat tax petitioners prevailed pennsylvania tax invalidated scheiner case never enacted litigation reached litigation lose simply decided scheiner first scheiner applied understanding commerce clause retroactively reversing pennsylvania judgment similar flat highway tax unconstitutional remanding case consideration remedial issues follow course accidental timing decisions two timely filed currently pending cases past produced difference law applicable respective litigants iii fundamental notions fairness legal process dictate rules applied similar cases direct review considerations finality justifiable expectations grown surrounding rule ordinarily properly given expression rules res judicata stare decisis legal rights parties finally determined principles public policy private peace dictate matter open relitigation every time change law federated department stores moitie quoting hart steel railroad supply time however legal rights parties finally determined law simple justice requires rule law even new rule evenhandedly applied justice blackmun explained griffith kentucky endorsed justice harlan views subject retroactivity justice harlan view failure apply newly declared constitutional rule criminal cases pending direct review violates basic norms constitutional adjudication first settled principle adjudicates cases controversies see art iii unlike legislature promulgate new rules constitutional criminal procedure broad basis rather nature judicial review requires adjudicate specific cases case usually becomes vehicle announcement new rule decided new rule case selected integrity judicial review requires apply rule similar cases pending direct review justice harlan observed resolve cases us direct review light best understanding governing constitutional principles difficult see adjudicate case truth assertion power disregard current law adjudicating cases us already run full course appellate review quite simply assertion constitutional function one adjudication effect legislation mackey opinion concurring judgment second selective application new rules violates principle treating similarly situated defendants see desist harlan dissenting pointed johnson problem applying new rules cases pending direct review actual inequity results chooses many similarly situated defendants chance beneficiary new rule emphasis original although tolerated inequity time applying new rules retroactively cases direct review noted time toleration come end ibid impulse make new decisional rule nonretroactive rests civil cases least upon considerations lie core stare decisis namely avoid jolting expectations parties transaction yet decision abandon precedent made see justification applying principles determined wrong constitutional otherwise litigants may still come critical factor determining new decisional rule applied transaction consummated prior decision announcement view point transaction acquired degree finality rights parties considered frozen criminal field crucial moment cases time conviction become final see desist dissent supra civil area moment transaction beyond challenge either statute limitations run rights parties fixed litigation become res judicata uncertainty engendered approach think deemed part risks life 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 thus may law remedies permit rescission example award damages party finds able avoid contract new notions public policy cf simpson union oil essential point flexibility law remedies affect underlying substantive principle short bar res judicata statute limitations courts apply prevailing decisional rule cases estate donnelly concurring opinion phoenix kolodziejski dissent justice stewart justice harlan chief justice burger invalidated arizona statute limiting franchise real property taxpayers elections authorize general obligation bonds legislators little reason believe provisions unconstitutional enacted justice white portion opinion joined justice harlan reaffirmed retroactivity approach cipriano decision apply authorizations general obligation bonds final date decision since plaintiff challenge timely filed case apply retroactively moreover case authorizing challenges bond elections within definite period elections held prior date decision affected decision unless challenge grounds sustained decision brought within period specified state law see also hill stone cipriano kolodziejski petitioners plainly entitled adjudication arkansas hue tax violated constitution decision scheiner lawsuit timely filed case comes us assessment taxes yet final evenhanded administration justice requires give benefit decisional rule applied favor taxpayers scheiner iv plurality rejects analysis implication decisions cipriano kolodziejski instead applies approach took respect federal statutes limitations chevron oil huson plurality operative conduct events occurred decision apply law prevailing time conduct ante ither party may benefit application chevron oil rule ante assessment hue taxes constitutional ante time enacted state legislators good reason believe constitutional time collected state authorities justified relying precedents ante logic tax considered unconstitutional prior decision james dravo contracting complete auto transit brady presumably state still held liable even though better understanding constitution conduct entirely lawful plurality proffered distinction griffith accepted retroactivity rules must apply civil defendants apply civil plaintiffs ante plurality sole support anomalous approach law applicable particular case law parties believe good faith applicable case citation single griffith area civil retroactivity continues governed standard announced chevron oil huson griffith however support majority reading close examination chevron oil progeny reveals cases establish remedial principle exercise equitable discretion federal courts plurality principle applicable cases direct review ante chevron oil involved controversy two private litigants application statute limitations actions outer continental shelf lands act time lawsuit initiated long line decisions holding admiralty law doctrine laches applied personal injury suits act defendant initially challenge timeliness action special circumstances ruled interpretation act incorporate admiralty doctrine apply retroactively bar plaintiff suit remedial considerations dispositive analysis stressed considering retroactive effect decision establishing new principle law consider remedial issues purpose effect rule question inequity imposed retroactive application held devotion underlying purpose lands act absorption state law weighing equities requires nonretroactive application state statute limitations see also goodman lukens steel applying new limitations rule retroactively previous law party entitled rely inequitable held plaintiff slept rights period neither defendant known time limitation applied case insofar chevron oil apply interpretation federal law parties affirmed lower decision adopting contrary understanding federal law case even address problem presented case addressed justice harlan disparate treatment similarly situated parties one thing address issues indispensable judgment delay issuance judgment quite another refuse apply reasoning one case necessary judgment virtually identical case fundamentally however chevron oil involved application statute limitations area federal courts historically asserted equitable discretion craft rules tolling laches waiver see bowen city new york zipes trans world airlines burnett new york central braun sauerwein wall seems therefore established running statute limitation may suspended causes mentioned statute statutes limitations proceed upon presumption claims extinguished whenever litigated proper forum within prescribed period take away solid ground complaint rest negligence laches party hanger abbott wall none reasons statute founded possibly apply federal courts exercised equitable discretion suspend running limitations period conformity policy underlying statute limitations burnett supra author chevron oil later explained mere fact federal statute providing substantive liability also sets time limitation upon institution suit restrict power federal courts hold statute limitations tolled certain circumstances inconsistent legislative purpose american pipe construction utah stewart federal courts equitable discretion held federal authority refuse apply law retroactively see firestone tire rubber risjord remainder retroactivity cases fit similar mold saint francis college recognized usual rule federal cases decided accordance law existing time decision citing gulf offshore mobil oil thorpe housing authority durham schooner peggy cranch found chevron oil counsel ed retroactive application statute limitations decisions certain circumstances emphasis added without deciding correct statute limitations period held respondent claim time barred timely filed clearly established law circuit contrast goodman lukens steel gave retroactive effect decision statute limitations suits overruled clearly established law circuit time complaining party brought suit clear circuit precedent entitled rely saint francis college lukens steel make clear chevron oil alter principle consummated transactions analyzed best current understanding law time decision rather establishes principle particular exercise equitable discretion civil cases upon chevron oil relied allen state bd elections hanover shoe shoe machinery reynolds sims simpson union oil well cases relied upon florida long arizona governing comm tax deferred annuity deferred compensation plans norris lemon kurtzman lemon ii concerned application new constitutional statutory rule rather relief federal award applying new law see also caban mohammed stevens dissenting cases remedy cases justice harlan explained consideration reliance might appropriate see estate donnelly concurring opinion plurality stated lemon ii problem appropriate scope federal equitable remedies distinct issue implicated case emphasis added equity nowhere else courts eschew rigid absolutes look practical realities necessities inescapably involved reconciling competing interests notwithstanding interests constitutional roots see also citing estate donnelly harlan concurring arkansas hue tax unquestionably violates commerce clause two results might follow conclusion retention taxes assessed violates due process clause decision today mckesson division alcoholic beverages tobacco dept business regulation ante petitioners entitled remedy state freedom impose various procedural requirements refund mechanism sufficiently meets state interest sound fiscal planning ante retention taxes violate due process clause violate state constitutional provision governing illegal exactions petitioners entitled relief matter state law state right provide relief illegally exacted taxes make judgment equities free determination relief unduly burdensome either event whether think relief violation fundamental fairness unfair state choice remedy unjust state warrant substitute judgment due process clause state law require hold decision scheiner need apply state law time challenging tax expired cases brought within time specified state law challenging tax decisions yet final arkansas reach issue whether refund remedy available state law erroneous view federal law prevented retroactive application decision scheiner taxes paid prior date justice blackmun escrow order therefore remand case arkansas consideration whether petitioners entitled relief state law decision today mckesson division alcoholic beverages tobacco dept business regulation ante respectfully dissent justice scalia contrast agrees constitutionality state statute must analyzed light current understanding constitution ante opinion today mckesson division alcoholic beverages tobacco dept business regulation ante makes clear federal constitution require state refund entire tax unconstitutionally exacted petitioners refund discriminatory portion otherwise adjust tax render nondiscriminatory petitioners contend entitled greater relief matter federal law see brief petitioners petitioners contend entitled tax refund taxes paid voluntarily prior institution lawsuit plurality assertion contrary notwithstanding see ante payne stand expansive proposition federal law limits relief state may provide narrow proposition state decision particular remedy constitutionally required federal question case course petitioners complain state erroneously decided federal law prevented applying retroactivity remedial principles indeed whole law qualified immunity predicated assumption even new law decisions apply retroactively owen city independence example held municipality liable violating principles due process established weeks conduct board regents state colleges roth rejected municipality claim qualified immunity decision owen necessarily predicated upon view apply law effect time decision considering whether state violated constitution although plurality technically correct owen hold constitutional decisions always apply retroactively ante case congress enacted surely contemplate state actors achieve judicially crafted doctrine retroactivity immunity damages also liability denied floors congress cf rudovsky qualified immunity doctrine judicial activism restriction constitutional rights rev decisions avery midland county harper virginia bd elections reynolds sims also stated remedial matter period challenging bond elections bonds issued prior commencement action open challenge basis decision justice harlan joined portion opinion understand express views contrary expressed estate donnelly addition case comes us conceded petitioners challenge timely filed pursuant state provision challenging tax payments although plurality makes much potential liability state might subject due process clause state law admits end initial duty determining appropriate relief lies state courts ante case comes us burden retroactive application scheiner place arkansas precisely determined ante event even state held liable due process clause state law plurality absolve state liability backdoor determining conduct lawful although one surmise plurality treatment issue applicability chevron oil challenged parties see brief petitioners brief respondents amici sides case see brief national conference state legislatures et al amici curiae brief national private truck council amicus curiae chapman california michigan payne arsenault massachusetts provide support plurality approach chapman involved remedy constitutional violation thus undermines rather supports plurality analysis said presented federal question passage quoted incompletely plurality ante hether conviction crime stand state failed accord federal constitutionally guaranteed rights arsenault presented similar situation state guise retroactivity denied remedy constitutionally required finally payne state unclear whether particular remedy required federal constitution respect chevron oil huson one line cases announced new rules future refusing apply even parties see also buckley valeo england louisiana state bd medical examiners northern pipeline construction marathon pipe line held decision applied retroactively sense judgments entered prior date decision upset chevron oil also relied upon criminal cases overruled griffith kentucky civil cases relied chevron oil cipriano city houma chicot county drainage district baxter state bank great northern sunburst oil refining municipal bond cases gelpcke city dubuque wall havemeyer iowa county wall railroad mcclure wall provide support judgment cipriano see supra civil cases cited chevron oil justice harlan explained none support result reached today gelpcke city dubuque wall holds state courts may compelled situations particular provisions federal constitution apply certain new rules prospectively great northern sunburst oil refining merely holds federal constitution imposes barrier state decision apply new state rule prospectively sufficient answer dissenters final assertion precedential support point chicot county drainage district baxter state bank collateral attack civil judgment already otherwise final entitled res judicata effect mackey opinion concurring judgment part dissenting part