136 S. Ct. 1277 (2016)
In the early 1990s Gilbert P. Hyatt moved from California to Nevada.1 Hyatt maintains that the move occurred in September 1991, while California's Franchise Tax Board determined after an audit that he moved in April 1992 and therefore owed more than $10 million in taxes, penalties, and interest.2
Hyatt filed suit in Nevada state court against the Franchise Tax Board, a California state agency, alleging abusive practices during the audit and investigation, such as rifling through his private mail, combing through his garbage, and examining private activities at his place of worship.3 After the Nevada Supreme Court decided to extend comity-based immunity to California agencies to the same extent as Nevada agencies, the United States Supreme Court affirmed that approach in 2003.4
The case proceeded to trial, where a jury awarded Hyatt nearly $500 million in damages and fees.5 On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed $1 million of the award for fraud and remanded the emotional distress claim for retrial, holding that no statutory damages cap would apply on remand because California's controls over its agencies were inadequate.6
California petitioned for certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted to address whether to overrule Nevada v. Hall and whether Nevada could award greater damages against California than it would permit against its own agencies.7
Whether Nevada v. Hall should be overruled?8
When the Supreme Court is equally divided on a question of overruling precedent, the judgment below is affirmed without disturbing the prior decision.9
No. The Court is equally divided on whether to overrule Nevada v. Hall.10 The established facts show that Hyatt filed suit in Nevada state court against the California Franchise Tax Board after the Board audited his taxes and assessed over ten million dollars in liability.11 The Nevada Supreme Court extended comity-based immunity matching Nevada's own rules, and the Supreme Court affirmed that approach in 2003. The case went to trial and produced a large verdict.12 Because the Court remains equally divided, it affirms the Nevada courts' exercise of jurisdiction over the California agency without overruling Hall.13
The facts confirm that jurisdiction was proper under existing precedent.14 Hyatt's allegations of abusive audit practices, including mail searches and garbage inspections, were litigated in Nevada courts.15 The procedural history, including the 2003 affirmance and subsequent trial, supports continued jurisdiction.16
The Court affirms the Nevada courts' exercise of jurisdiction over California's state agency.17
Whether the Constitution permits Nevada to apply a rule of Nevada law that awards damages against California that are greater than it could award against Nevada in similar circumstances?18
No. The Nevada Supreme Court applied a special rule allowing damages greater than fifty thousand dollars against California while capping similar recoveries against Nevada agencies at that amount.21 The established facts show that the Nevada court justified this departure by declaring California's controls over its agencies inadequate to protect Nevada citizens.22 This explanation created a discriminatory rule applicable only to a sister State and therefore embodied the forbidden policy of hostility.23
Application of the rule to the facts confirms the violation. The jury awarded nearly five hundred million dollars, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed one million dollars for fraud, and it remanded the emotional distress claim without any statutory cap.24 Both California law and Nevada's ordinary immunity rules would have limited or barred such recoveries.25 By discarding its own general principles solely because the defendant was California, Nevada violated the Clause.26
The Constitution does not permit Nevada to apply such a rule of law.27
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Thomas
Chief Justice Roberts dissented on the ground that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require Nevada to rewrite its immunity rules to match California's complete immunity.28 He maintained that the Clause permits a State to apply its own law when redressing injuries occurring inside its borders.29 Nevada possessed a sufficient policy interest in protecting its residents from torts such as fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.30 Roberts further argued that the majority's hybrid remedy, granting partial immunity, finds no support in the Clause's text, which demands either full faith and credit to California law or application of Nevada law in its entirety.31
He noted that Nevada had already shown comity by eliminating punitive damages.32 The majority improperly returned to interest balancing.33