Kevin Marilley v. Charlton Bonham

I concur in Part III of Judge M. Smith’s dissent and agree that California failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that the differential fees it charges to nonresidents are “closely drawn” to the achievement of a, “substantial state objective.” Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman, 487 U.S. 59, 68, 108 S.Ct. 2260, 101 L.Ed.2d 56 (1988). Permissible state objectives include “compensating] the State for any added enforcement burden they may impose or for any conservation expenditures from taxes which only residents pay.” Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 399, 68 S.Ct. 1156, 92 L.Ed. 1460…