## Facts

- Alabama imposed a gross premiums tax on insurers that taxed domestic insurance companies at a lower rate than out-of-state (“foreign”) insurers doing business in the state.
- Foreign insurers could reduce, but not eliminate, the tax differential by making specified investments in Alabama assets and securities.
- Several foreign insurers paid the tax and sought refunds, arguing that the discriminatory scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Alabama Commissioner of Insurance denied the refund claims.
- Alabama courts upheld the statute; the state high court entered judgment for the State and intervening domestic insurers after the foreign insurers waived an evidentiary hearing on rational relationship.

## Issues

1. Whether a state violates the Equal Protection Clause by imposing a premium tax that favors domestic insurers over foreign insurers to promote domestic industry.
2. Whether encouraging foreign insurers to invest in in-state assets can justify a tax scheme that discriminates against foreign insurers.
3. Whether the McCarran–Ferguson Act shields discriminatory state insurance taxation from Equal Protection review.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment for Alabama and the intervening domestic insurers.
- The Court held that the domestic-preference premium tax violated the Equal Protection Clause as applied to foreign insurers.
- The Court concluded that promoting domestic business by discriminating against nonresidents is not a legitimate state purpose.
- The Court rejected in-state investment encouragement as a saving rationale because it was tied to the same discriminatory objective.
- The Court held that the McCarran–Ferguson Act does not limit the applicability of the Equal Protection Clause to state insurance taxation.

## Legal Principles

- Under rational basis review, a classification must bear a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose.
- A State may not constitutionally tax foreign corporations at higher rates solely to advantage resident businesses; economic protectionism of that kind is not a legitimate purpose under Equal Protection.
- A purported investment incentive does not validate a discriminatory tax when it functions as a means to pressure out-of-state competitors to accept higher taxes or divert capital into the State.
- Congressional authorization of state insurance regulation under the McCarran–Ferguson Act does not exempt state action from Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection constraints.
- A retaliatory tax designed to induce equal treatment by other States is distinct from a domestic-preference tax aimed at favoring local firms for its own sake.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated Alabama’s premium tax preference for domestic insurers, holding that favoring local industry and coercing in-state investment through discriminatory taxation are not legitimate purposes under the Equal Protection Clause, even under rational basis review, and that federal deference to state insurance regulation does not displace constitutional equality limits.


Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 470 U.S. 869 (1985)