## Facts

- Arkansas imposed a general sales tax on sales of tangible personal property and exempted newspapers and certain in-state “religious, professional, trade, and sports” journals.
- Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. published *Arkansas Times*, a general-interest magazine that included some religious and sports content but did not fit within the exempt categories.
- The publisher sought a refund of sales tax paid since 1982, arguing the exemption should cover its magazine and that the scheme violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The state revenue commissioner denied the refund; the publisher sued, also asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 for injunctive relief and attorney’s fees.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the publisher by construing the exemption to include *Arkansas Times*.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed, limiting the exemption to the listed subject-matter periodicals and rejecting the constitutional challenge as affording the publisher no effective relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the publisher had standing to challenge the sales-tax scheme and exemptions even though its magazine was not within the exempt categories.
2. Whether taxing general-interest magazines while exempting newspapers and specified subject-matter journals constitutes unconstitutional content-based discrimination against the press under the First Amendment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Arkansas Supreme Court (7–2).
- The publisher had standing because the constitutional challenge offered the only means of relief from the tax burden; underinclusive tax schemes are not insulated from review merely because the challenger is not favored.
- The sales-tax scheme violated the First Amendment because tax liability turned on a publication’s content, requiring classification by subject matter.
- Because the scheme imposed content-based burdens on the press, it was subject to strict scrutiny, which the State failed to satisfy.
- General revenue raising, encouraging new publishers, and encouraging in-state communication did not justify the content-based distinctions, and the exemptions were not narrowly drawn to serve those interests.

## Legal Principles

- A state may impose generally applicable, ordinary taxes on the press, but it may not impose differential taxation that singles out publications based on content or targets a subset of speakers.
- Tax schemes that require official examination of a publication’s subject matter to determine tax status are content based and presumptively unconstitutional.
- Content-based burdens on the press are valid only if the State proves a compelling interest and narrow tailoring.
- A party subject to a tax has standing to challenge discriminatory exemptions when invalidation or extension of the scheme could relieve the challenged burden; underinclusive statutes remain open to constitutional challenge.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Arkansas’s sales-tax scheme unconstitutionally discriminated among publications based on content by taxing general-interest magazines while exempting newspapers and selected subject-matter journals, and it confirmed that a taxed publisher may challenge such underinclusive, content-based exemptions under the First Amendment.


Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221 (1987)