## Facts

- Wyoming is a major coal-producing state that imposes a severance tax on coal extracted within the state.
- From 1981 to 1986, Wyoming-mined coal supplied virtually all coal purchased by four Oklahoma electric utilities, including the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA), a state agency.
- In 1988, Oklahoma enacted a statute requiring coal-fired electric utilities to burn a mixture containing at least 10% Oklahoma-mined coal.
- After enactment, Oklahoma utilities reduced purchases of Wyoming coal in favor of Oklahoma coal, and Wyoming’s severance-tax revenues declined.
- Wyoming filed an original action seeking a declaration that the statute violated the Commerce Clause and an injunction against enforcement.
- A Special Master recommended (i) finding standing, (ii) exercising original jurisdiction, and (iii) holding the statute unconstitutional; the Master suggested possible severability or dismissal as to GRDA.
- The Supreme Court granted Wyoming summary judgment, denied Oklahoma’s, and rejected preserving the statute in a GRDA-only form.

## Issues

1. Whether Wyoming had Article III standing based on an alleged loss of specific severance-tax revenues caused by Oklahoma’s statute.
2. Whether the interstate dispute was appropriate for the Supreme Court’s exercise of original jurisdiction.
3. Whether Oklahoma’s requirement that utilities burn at least 10% Oklahoma-mined coal violated the dormant Commerce Clause as facial discrimination against interstate commerce.
4. Whether the statute could be severed or otherwise sustained as applied only to the state-owned GRDA.

## Decision

- The Court held Wyoming had standing because the alleged loss of specific severance-tax revenues was fairly traceable to the in-state coal mandate and would be redressed by invalidation.
- The Court exercised original jurisdiction, concluding the controversy between states over alleged discriminatory legislation warranted resolution in that posture.
- The Court held the Oklahoma statute violated the Commerce Clause because it was facially discriminatory and Oklahoma failed to justify it under the applicable standard.
- The Court declined to preserve the statute through severability or a GRDA-only application and invalidated the measure as unconstitutional.
- The Court adopted the Special Master’s recommendations in part, sustained Wyoming’s exceptions, rejected Oklahoma’s exceptions, granted Wyoming’s summary-judgment motion, and denied Oklahoma’s.

## Legal Principles

- A state has Article III standing when it plausibly alleges a direct loss of specific tax revenues that is fairly traceable to another state’s challenged law and likely to be redressed by judicial relief.
- A statute that mandates a fixed minimum share of in-state goods for use or purchase by regulated entities is facial discrimination against interstate commerce.
- Facial discrimination triggers the state’s burden to show a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives; unsupported or protectionist justifications are insufficient.
- Severability requires a basis to conclude the legislature would have intended the statute to operate in the narrowed form; absent such indication, the court may invalidate the statute rather than rewrite it.

## Conclusion

The Court permitted Wyoming to sue Oklahoma in an original action based on a direct, traceable loss of severance-tax revenues and held Oklahoma’s in-state coal quota unconstitutional as facially discriminatory under the dormant Commerce Clause, rejecting efforts to preserve the law through a GRDA-only limitation.


Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437 (1992)