Thread by @2Aupdates

"What really propels the plaintiffs’ view that Congress is constitutionally foreclosed from eliminating or curtailing the SALT deduction is their position that, until 2017, Congress had never done so. We disagree that the Constitution imposes such a constraint on Congress."

"And while they argue that the SALT deduction lowers 'the effective cost of state and local taxes,' they point us to nothing that compels the federal Government to protect taxpayers from the true costs of paying their state and local taxes."

"In fact, the history of the deduction helps the Plaintiff States virtually not at all."

"The Plaintiff States downplay this legislative development by claiming that sales taxes are not nearly as important as income and property taxes. Their argument is hard to accept."

"We cannot help but note that the Plaintiff States’ arguments mimic those that the Supreme Court rejected in South Carolina v. Baker"

"We are not persuaded that the cap unconstitutionally infringes on state sovereignty."

"We do not mean to minimize the Plaintiff States’ losses or the impact of the cap on their respective economies. But we find it implausible that the amounts in question give rise to a constitutional violation."

"They argue that New Jersey, for example, is likely to lose over $100 million in property and real estate transfer taxes in 2019 and 2020. But New Jersey’s budget in 2019 alone was $37.3 billion."

"In pursuing this tack, the Plaintiff States rely on Shelby County v. Holder to claim that facially neutral laws like the SALT deduction cap can violate the principle of equal state sovereignty if they affect States differently."

"Finally, the Plaintiff States complain that Congress unfairly targeted them... Nothing in Shelby County suggests that the equal sovereignty principle bars such a purpose."