Ex Parte Bransford

Background

A county treasurer in Pima County, Arizona, asked the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to require a three-judge federal court for a lawsuit brought by a bank. The Valley National Bank sued to block county tax collection of bank shares after a 1935 state valuation rule set bank shares at 75% of certain capital accounts. The bank had preferred stock owned by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and claimed that the county’s Pima assessment was excessive, discriminatory, and possibly included exempt preferred stock. The bank paid the amount it calculated under protest and then sought an injunction against further collection.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether Judicial Code §266 required three judges whenever a state officer is enjoined. It held that §266 applies only when the injunction is sought on the ground that a state statute itself is unconstitutional. Here, the bank’s complaints largely attacked the way the statute was applied or the resulting assessment, or asked for interpretation of federal statutes exempting certain preferred stock. Those claims involve statutory construction or alleged wrongful officer action under the statute, not a direct attack on the state law’s constitutionality. Because the complaint did not challenge the statute itself as unconstitutional, a three-judge court was not required, and mandamus to compel one was denied.

Real world impact

This ruling leaves a single federal judge able to hear similar tax-assessment suits that contest assessments or statutory application rather than directly attacking a state law’s constitutionality. Parties who want a three-judge court must assert that a state statute is unconstitutional. The decision turns certain tax fights into single-judge proceedings unless the complaint frames a constitutional attack.