Introduction
Christopher Lunding took his case to the Supreme Court and won, coming away $3,724 richer (before expenses), and making some interesting constitutional law along the way. His case1 established that New York's denial of an alimony deduction for nonresidents, while granting such a deduction for residents, unconstitutionally denied Mr. Lunding the privileges and immunities enjoyed by residents of New York. (For the full text of the High Court's ruling in Lunding, see Doc 98-3734 (24 pages).)
The Supreme Court's decision in Lunding offers an interesting window on one particular aspect of the Constitution's injunctions against interstate discrimination. The majority of the Court found that New York had not adequately justified its discriminatory treatment of nonresident payers of alimony. An equally articulate minority, however, argued forcefully for the constitutionality of New York's tax regime. Within this debate one finds expressions of many practical and theoretical
