[MR. ROSENBERG]21LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] Mr22NPMr .23SENT. Chief24NPChief Justice25NPJustice ,26,, and27CCand may28MDmay it29PPit please30VVplease the31DTthe Court32NPCourt :33:: The34DTthe State35NNstate 's36POS's exemption37NNexemption violates38VVZviolate Section39NNsection and40CCand this41DTthis Court42NPCourt 's43POS's precedents44NNSprecedent because45INbecause it46PPit facially47RBfacially discriminates48VVZdiscriminate based49VVNbase on50INon the51DTthe source52NNsource of53INof the54DTthe compensation55NNcompensation ,56,, as57INas only58JJonly retirement59NNretirement benefits60NNSbenefit from61INfrom state62NNstate retirement63NNretirement plans64NNSplan are65VBPbe exempted66VVNexempt ,67,, and68CCand the69DTthe State70NPState cannot71MDcan show72VVshow any73DTany significant74JJsignificant differences75NNSdifference between76INbetween retired77VVNretire employees78NNSemployee of79INof the80DTthe U81NPU .82SENT. S83NPS .84SENT. Marshals85VVZmarshal Service86NPService and87CCand the88DTthe exempted89VVNexempt state90NNstate retirees91NNSretiree because92INbecause the93DTthe State94NPState concedes95VVZconcede that96IN/thatthat their97PP$their job98NNjob duties99NNSduty are100VBPbe the101DTthe same102JJsame .103SENT. This104DTthis Court105NPCourt should106MDshould reverse107VVreverse .108SENT. [JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR]109LOC[JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR] What110WPWhat do111VVPdo we112PPwe do113VVPdo with114INwith the115DTthe fact116NNfact that117IN/thatthat the118DTthe job119NNjob duties120NNSduty of121INof marshals122NNSmarshal overlap123VVPoverlap with124INwith the125DTthe two126CDtwo categories127NNScategory of128INof the129DTthe state130NNstate ?131SENT? They132PPthey overlap133VVPoverlap with134INwith the135DTthe people136NNSpeople paying137VVGpay less138JJRless tax139NNtax and140CCand with141INwith other142JJother law143NNlaw enforcement144NNenforcement agents145NNSagent who146WPwho pay147VVPpay more148JJRmore tax149NNtax .150SENT. So151RBso how152WRBhow do153VVPdo we154PPwe go155VVPgo about156RBabout identifying157VVGidentify ...158:... [MR. ROSENBERG]159LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] So160RBso ...161:... [JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR]162LOC[JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR] ...163:... who164WPwho they165PPthey 're166VBPbe most167RBSmost similar168JJsimilar to169TOto ?170SENT? [MR. ROSENBERG]171LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] ...172:... two173CDtwo responses174NNSresponse ,175,, Justice176NPJustice Sotomayor177NPSotomayor .178SENT. The179DTthe first180JJfirst is181VBZbe the182DTthe inquiry183NNinquiry is184VBZbe n't185RBn't who186WPwho they187PPthey 're188VBPbe most189RBSmost similar190JJsimilar to191TOto .192SENT. Under193INunder Davis194NPDavis ,195,, so196RBso long197RBlong as198INas the199DTthe plaintiffs200NNSplaintiff here201RBhere ,202,, the203DTthe U204NPU .205SENT. S206NPS .207SENT. Marshals208NNSmarshal ,209,, are210VBPbe similar211JJsimilar to212TOto the213DTthe exempted214VVNexempt state215NNstate employees216NNSemployee ,217,, that218WDTthat 's219VBZbe enough220JJenough .221SENT. That222DTthat 's223VBZbe because224INbecause Section225NNsection 111226CD@card@ provides227VVZprovide an228DTan individual229JJindividual right230NNright against231INagainst discrimination232NNdiscrimination for233INfor federal234JJfederal employees235NNSemployee .236SENT. And237CCand so238RBso ,239,, if240INif there241EXthere is242VBZbe a243DTa close244JJclose case245NNcase ,246,, for247INfor example248NNexample ,249,, if250INif there251EXthere really252RBreally were253VBDbe identical254JJidentical state255NNstate employees256NNSemployee ,257,, some258DTsome who259WPwho were260VBDbe exempted261VVNexempt and262CCand some263DTsome who264WPwho were265VBDbe n't266RBn't ,267,, that268DTthat case269NNcase would270MDwould go271VVgo to272TOto the273DTthe federal274JJfederal employee275NNemployee because276INbecause the277DTthe ...278:... there279EXthere would280MDwould still281RBstill be282VBbe discrimination283NNdiscrimination because284INbecause some285DTsome state286NNstate employees287NNSemployee that288WDTthat are289VBPbe similarly290RBsimilarly situated291VVNsituate are292VBPbe treated293VVNtreat more294RBRmore favorably295RBfavorably than296INthan the297DTthe federal298JJfederal employees299NNSemployee .300SENT. [JUSTICE KAVANAUGH]301LOC[JUSTICE KAVANAUGH] But302CCbut what303WPwhat if304INif there305EXthere are306VBPbe two307CDtwo groups308NNSgroup of309INof state310NNstate employees311NNSemployee ,312,, let313VVlet 's314VBZbe say315VVsay group316NNgroup 1317CD1 and318CCand group319NNgroup 2320CD2 ,321,, and322CCand they323PPthey 're324VBPbe similarly325RBsimilarly situated326VVNsituate to327TOto each328DTeach other329JJother ...330:... [MR. ROSENBERG]331LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] Uh-huh332NPUh-huh .333SENT. [JUSTICE KAVANAUGH]334LOC[JUSTICE KAVANAUGH] ...335:... and336CCand then337RBthen a338DTa group339NNgroup of340INof federal341JJfederal ...342:... federal343JJfederal employees344NNSemployee who345WPwho are346VBPbe similarly347RBsimilarly situated348VVNsituate to349TOto both350DTboth group351NNgroup 1352CD1 and353CCand group354NNgroup 2355CD2 ?356SENT? In357INin that358DTthat situation359NNsituation ,360,, does361VVZdo the362DTthe State363NPState have364VHhave to365TOto treat366VVtreat the367DTthe federal368JJfederal employees369NNSemployee the370DTthe same371JJsame as372INas the373DTthe most374RBSmost favored375JJfavored group376NNgroup ,377,, if378INif group379NNgroup 1380CD1 has381VHZhave a382DTa favorable383JJfavorable tax384NNtax treatment385NNtreatment ,386,, or387CCor does388VVZdo the389DTthe State390NNstate in391INin that392DTthat example393NNexample have394VHPhave discretion395NNdiscretion since396INsince the397DTthe federal398JJfederal employees399NNSemployee are400VBPbe similarly401RBsimilarly situated402VVNsituate to403TOto both404DTboth group405NNgroup 1406CD1 ,407,, who408WPwho gets409VVZget the410DTthe favorable411JJfavorable ,412,, and413CCand group414NNgroup 2415CD2 ,416,, who417WPwho does418VVZdo not419RBnot ?420SENT? [MR. ROSENBERG]421LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] Justice422NPJustice Kavanaugh423NPKavanaugh ,424,, the425DTthe State426NPState has427VHZhave to428TOto treat429VVtreat the430DTthe federal431JJfederal employees432NNSemployee the433DTthe same434JJsame as435INas the436DTthe favored437JJfavored state438NNstate employees439NNSemployee .440SENT. The441DTthe State442NPState has443VHZhave discretion444NNdiscretion to445TOto treat446VVtreat its447PP$its own448JJown employees449NNSemployee differently450RBdifferently for451INfor various452JJvarious reasons453NNSreason ,454,, including455VVGinclude arbitrary456JJarbitrary reasons457NNSreason ,458,, but459CCbut once460RBonce it461PPit does462VVZdo so463RBso through464INthrough state465NNstate taxation466NNtaxation ,467,, the468DTthe State469NPState has470VHZhave to471TOto treat472VVtreat the473DTthe federal474JJfederal employees475NNSemployee as476RBas well477RBwell as478INas the479DTthe favored480JJfavored state481NNstate employees482NNSemployee .483SENT. [JUSTICE ALITO]484LOC[JUSTICE ALITO] I485PPI ...486:... I487PPI do488VVPdo n't489RBn't follow490VVfollow ...491:... [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]492LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] What493WPWhat if494INif ...495:... [JUSTICE ALITO]496LOC[JUSTICE ALITO] ...497:... why498WRBwhy that499DTthat is500VBZbe so501RBso .502SENT. If503INif the504DTthe ...505:... if506INif you507PPyou have508VHPhave two509CDtwo categories510NNScategory of511INof state512NNstate employees513NNSemployee and514CCand they515PPthey 're516VBPbe very517RBvery similar518JJsimilar and519CCand they520PPthey 're521VBPbe treated522VVNtreat differently523RBdifferently ,524,, and525CCand then526RBthen you527PPyou have528VHPhave a529DTa category530NNcategory of531INof federal532JJfederal employees533NNSemployee who534WPwho are535VBPbe similar536JJsimilar to537TOto both538DTboth of539INof those540DTthose categories541NNScategory of542INof state543NNstate employees544NNSemployee ,545,, would546MDwould n't547RBn't you548PPyou have549VHPhave to550TOto determine551VVdetermine which552WDTwhich group553NNgroup of554INof state555NNstate employees556NNSemployee are557VBPbe most558RBSmost ...559:... are560VBPbe more561RBRmore similar562JJsimilar to563TOto the564DTthe federal565JJfederal employees566NNSemployee ?567SENT? Otherwise568RBotherwise ,569,, it570PPit ...571:... I572PPI do573VVPdo n't574RBn't see575VVsee how576WRBhow it577PPit 's578POS's discrimination579NNdiscrimination .580SENT. [MR. ROSENBERG]581LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] So582RBso ,583,, Justice584NPJustice Alito585NPAlito ,586,, I587PPI do588VVPdo n't589RBn't think590VVthink you591PPyou have592VHPhave to593TOto determine594VVdetermine that595IN/thatthat because596INbecause ,597,, again598RBagain ,599,, it600PPit 's601VBZbe an602DTan individual603JJindividual right604NNright against605INagainst discrimination606NNdiscrimination .607SENT. If608INif this609DTthis Court610NPCourt looks611VVZlook to612TOto the613DTthe precedents614NNSprecedent like615INlike the616DTthe ICC617NPICC and618CCand railroad619NNrailroad precedents620NNSprecedent from621INfrom the622DTthe 1930s623NNS1930s ,624,, looks625VVZlook at626INat Alabama627NPAlabama versus628CCversus CSX629NPCSX ,630,, when631WRBwhen you632PPyou 're633VBPbe actually634RBactually trying635VVGtry to636TOto figure637VVfigure out638RPout who639WPwho you640PPyou 're641VBPbe comparing642VVGcompare it643PPit to644TOto ,645,, you646PPyou look647VVPlook at648INat ...649:... at650INat who651WPwho ...652:... the653DTthe language654NNlanguage of655INof the656DTthe statute657NNstatute ,658,, the659DTthe purpose660NNpurpose of661INof the662DTthe statute663NNstatute ,664,, the665DTthe context666NNcontext of667INof the668DTthe statute669NNstatute .670SENT. And671CCand here672RBhere ,673,, again674RBagain ,675,, it676PPit ...677:... [JUSTICE KAGAN]678LOC[JUSTICE KAGAN] But679CCbut an680DTan antidiscrimination681NNantidiscrimination provision682NNprovision does683VVZdo n't684RBn't necessarily685RBnecessarily require686VVrequire a687DTa most688RBSmost favored689JJfavored nation690NNnation clause691NNclause .692SENT. And693CCand as694INas I695PPI understand696VVPunderstand your697PP$your answers698NNSanswer to699TOto Justices700NPJustices Kavanaugh701NPKavanaugh and702CCand Alito703NPAlito ,704,, you705PPyou 're706VBPbe saying707VVGsay there708EXthere 's709VBZbe a710DTa most711RBSmost favored712JJfavored nation713NNnation requirement714NNrequirement .715SENT. [MR. ROSENBERG]716LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] Justice717NPJustice Kagan718NPKagan ,719,, two720CDtwo responses721NNSresponse .722SENT. One723CDOne ,724,, typically725RBtypically ,726,, you727PPyou do728VVPdo n't729RBn't have730VHhave a731DTa most732RBSmost favored733JJfavored nation734NNnation requirement735NNrequirement ,736,, as737INas you738PPyou note739VVPnote .740SENT. Two741CDTwo ,742,, I743PPI 'm744VBPbe not745RBnot sure746JJsure it747PPit 's748VBZbe most749RBSmost favored750VVNfavor here751RBhere .752SENT. It753PPit 's754VBZbe only755RBonly that756IN/thatthat where757WRBwhere the758DTthe State759NPState has760VHZhave drawn761VVNdraw sort762NNsort of763INof an764DTan arbitrary765JJarbitrary distinction766NNdistinction and767CCand it768PPit 's769VBZbe got770VVNget effectively771RBeffectively identically772RBidentically situated773VVNsituate state774NNstate employees775NNSemployee ,776,, one777CDone that778WDTthat gets779VVZget the780DTthe exemption781NNexemption ,782,, one783CDone that784WDTthat does785VVZdo n't786RBn't ,787,, and788CCand the789DTthe federal790JJfederal employee791NNemployee is792VBZbe similar793JJsimilar to794TOto both795DTboth ,796,, that797IN/thatthat this798DTthis sort799NNsort of800INof comes801VVZcome in802INin where803WRBwhere the804DTthe ...805:... the806DTthe tie807NNtie here808RBhere goes809VVZgo to810TOto the811DTthe federal812JJfederal government813NNgovernment .814SENT. [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]815LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] Have816VHPhave any817DTany ...818:... [JUSTICE GINSBURG]819LOC[JUSTICE GINSBURG] Can820MDcan we821PPwe get822VVget away823RBaway from824INfrom the825DTthe academic826JJacademic two827CDtwo ...828:... two829CDtwo classes830NNSclass and831CCand compare832VVcompare the833DTthe two834CDtwo state835NNstate groups836NNSgroup ?837SENT? I838PPI take839VVPtake it840PPit that841IN/thatthat police842NNpolice officers843NNSofficer ,844,, firefighters845NNSfirefighter ,846,, and847CCand others848NNSother are849VBPbe exempt850JJexempt .851SENT. A852DTa few853JJfew are854VBPbe not855RBnot exempt856JJexempt .857SENT. Within858INwithin the859DTthe state860NNstate category861NNcategory ,862,, the863DTthe state864NNstate 's865POS's two866CDtwo category867NNcategory ,868,, which869WDTwhich one870PPone is871VBZbe the872DTthe larger873JJRlarge ...874:... which875WDTwhich is876VBZbe ...877:... one878PPone is879VBZbe more880JJRmore like881INlike the882DTthe federal883JJfederal marshals884NNSmarshal ?885SENT? [MR. ROSENBERG]886LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] Justice887NPJustice Ginsburg888NPGinsburg ,889,, the890DTthe larger891JJRlarge group892NNgroup ,893,, as894RBas far895RBfar as896INas we897PPwe can898MDcan tell899VVtell and900CCand the901DTthe record902NNrecord reflects903VVZreflect ,904,, is905VBZbe the906DTthe state907NNstate law908NNlaw enforcement909NNenforcement personnel910NNSpersonnel who911WPwho are912VBPbe exempt913JJexempt .914SENT. It915PPit includes916VVZinclude all917DTall state918NNstate troopers919NNStrooper ,920,, it921PPit includes922VVZinclude all923DTall deputy924JJdeputy sheriffs925NNSsheriff ,926,, for927INfor example928NNexample .929SENT. If930INif we931PPwe 're932VBPbe actually933RBactually comparing934VVGcompare Mr935NPMr .936SENT. Dawson937NPDawson ,938,, he939PPhe 's940POS's plainly941RBplainly most942JJSmost like943INlike a944DTa deputy945JJdeputy sheriff946NNsheriff .947SENT. Under948INunder West949NPWest Virginia950NPVirginia law951NNlaw ,952,, sheriffs953NNSsheriff and954CCand deputy955JJdeputy sheriffs956NNSsheriff have957VHPhave the958DTthe same959JJsame authority960NNauthority .961SENT. The962DTthe only963JJonly non-exempt964JJnon-exempt individual965NNindividual that966IN/thatthat the967DTthe State968NPState has969VHZhave tried970VVNtry to971TOto compare972VVcompare Mr973NPMr .974SENT. Dawson975NPDawson to976RBto is977VBZbe ,978,, in979INin its980PP$its brief981NNbrief in982INin this983DTthis Court984NPCourt ,985,, it986PPit tried987VVDtry to988TOto compare989VVcompare him990PPhim to991TOto sheriffs992NNSsheriff .993SENT. But994CCbut sheriffs995NNSsheriff and996CCand deputy997JJdeputy sheriffs998NNSsheriff have999VHPhave the1000DTthe same1001JJsame job1002NNjob duties1003NNSduty ,1004,, have1005VHPhave the1006DTthe same1007JJsame authority1008NNauthority under1009INunder West1010NPWest Virginia1011NPVirginia law1012NNlaw .1013SENT. Mr1014NPMr .1015SENT. Dawson1016NPDawson ,1017,, in1018INin fact1019NNfact ,1020,, was1021VBDbe a1022DTa deputy1023JJdeputy sheriff1024NNsheriff in1025INin West1026NPWest Virginia1027NPVirginia before1028INbefore he1029PPhe became1030VVDbecome a1031DTa deputy1032JJdeputy United1033NPUnited States1034NPSStates Marshal1035NPMarshal .1036SENT. [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]1037LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] Well1038UHWell ,1039,, but1040CCbut there1041RBthere ...1042:... he1043PPhe ...1044:... he1045PPhe was1046VBDbe different1047JJdifferent things1048NNSthing .1049SENT. He1050PPhe 's1051VBZbe not1052RBnot just1053RBjust somebody1054NNsomebody who1055WPwho was1056VBDbe working1057VVGwork in1058INin the1059DTthe Marshals1060NNSmarshal Service1061NNservice .1062SENT. He1063PPhe was1064VBDbe for1065INfor a1066DTa while1067NNwhile .1068SENT. And1069CCand then1070RBthen maybe1071RBmaybe you1072PPyou have1073VHPhave an1074DTan argument1075NNargument with1076INwith respect1077NNrespect to1078TOto the1079DTthe other1080JJother state1081NNstate .1082SENT. But1083CCbut he1084PPhe was1085VBDbe also1086RBalso the1087DTthe U1088NPU .1089SENT. S1090NPS .1091SENT. Marshal1092NNmarshal ...1093:... [MR. ROSENBERG]1094LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] Right1095NPRight .1096SENT. [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]1097LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] ...1098:... and1099CCand that1100DTthat is1101VBZbe not1102RBnot like1103INlike a1104DTa cop1105NNcop on1106INon the1107DTthe beat1108NNbeat .1109SENT. I1110PPI would1111MDwould suspect1112VVsuspect he1113PPhe 's1114VBZbe not1115RBnot accompanying1116VVGaccompany fugitives1117NNSfugitive when1118WRBwhen they1119PPthey move1120VVPmove from1121INfrom one1122CDone ...1123:... I1124PPI mean1125VVPmean prisoners1126NNSprisoner when1127WRBwhen they1128PPthey move1129VVPmove from1130INfrom one1131CDone place1132NNplace to1133TOto another1134DTanother .1135SENT. His1136PP$his job1137NNjob is1138VBZbe ,1139,, you1140PPyou know1141VVPknow ,1142,, more1143JJRmore policy1144NNpolicy ,1145,, administrative1146JJadministrative .1147SENT. Does1148VVZdo some1149DTsome of1150INof his1151PP$his retirement1152NNretirement money1153NNmoney come1154VVNcome from1155INfrom his1156PP$his time1157NNtime as1158INas U1159NPU .1160SENT. S1161NPS .1162SENT. Marshal1163NNmarshal ?1164SENT? [MR. ROSENBERG]1165LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] I1166PPI believe1167VVPbelieve some1168DTsome of1169INof it1170PPit does1171VVZdo ,1172,, but1173CCbut some1174RBsome also1175RBalso from1176INfrom when1177WRBwhen he1178PPhe was1179VBDbe a1180DTa deputy1181NNdeputy .1182SENT. [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]1183LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] Well1184UHWell ,1185,, what1186WPwhat do1187VVPdo you1188PPyou do1189VVPdo in1190INin that1191DTthat situation1192NNsituation ?1193SENT? I1194PPI mean1195VVPmean ,1196,, we1197PPwe have1198VHPhave different1199JJdifferent comparators1200NNScomparator on1201INon the1202DTthe state1203NNstate side1204NNside ,1205,, but1206CCbut he1207PPhe himself1208PPhimself embodies1209VVZembody ,1210,, at1211INat least1212JJSleast arguably1213RBarguably ,1214,, two1215CDtwo entirely1216RBentirely different1217JJdifferent types1218NNStype of1219INof job1220NNjob .1221SENT. [MR. ROSENBERG]1222LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] He1223PPhe embodies1224VVZembody multiple1225JJmultiple jobs1226NNSjob ,1227,, but1228CCbut his1229PP$his basic1230JJbasic duties1231NNSduty as1232INas a1233DTa law1234NNlaw enforcement1235NNenforcement officer1236NNofficer did1237VVDdo n't1238RBn't change1239VVchange .1240SENT. He1241PPhe had1242VHDhave the1243DTthe same1244JJsame responsibilities1245NNSresponsibility as1246INas a1247DTa law1248NNlaw enforcement1249NNenforcement officer1250NNofficer .1251SENT. Whether1252INwhether he1253PPhe was1254VBDbe doing1255VVGdo the1256DTthe same1257JJsame thing1258NNthing on1259INon a1260DTa daily1261JJdaily basis1262NNbasis I1263PPI do1264VVPdo n't1265RBn't think1266VVthink is1267VBZbe the1268DTthe proper1269JJproper inquiry1270NNinquiry .1271SENT. [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]1272LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] I1273PPI do1274VVPdo n't1275RBn't think1276VVthink that1277WDTthat 's1278VBZbe right1279JJright .1280SENT. His1281PP$his responsibilities1282NNSresponsibility did1283VVDdo n't1284RBn't include1285VVinclude tracking1286VVGtrack down1287RPdown fugitives1288NNSfugitive or1289CCor the1290DTthe other1291JJother things1292NNSthing that1293DTthat somebody1294NNsomebody ,1295,, you1296PPyou know1297VVPknow ,1298,, at1299INat the1300DTthe ...1301:... at1302INat the1303DTthe sort1304NNsort of1305INof operational1306JJoperational level1307NNlevel of1308INof the1309DTthe service1310NNservice does1311VVZdo .1312SENT. [MR. ROSENBERG]1313LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] What1314WDTwhat ...1315:... [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]1316LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] I1317PPI mean1318VVPmean ,1319,, would1320MDwould you1321PPyou say1322VVsay the1323DTthe Attorney1324NPAttorney General1325NPGeneral would1326MDwould qualify1327VVqualify in1328INin this1329DTthis situation1330NNsituation ?1331SENT? He1332PPhe has1333VHZhave law1334NNlaw enforcement1335NNenforcement duties1336NNSduty .1337SENT. [MR. ROSENBERG]1338LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] Probably1339RBprobably not1340RBnot ,1341,, but1342CCbut ...1343:... but1344CCbut that1345DTthat ...1346:... that1347WDTthat 's1348VBZbe a1349DTa different1350JJdifferent circumstance1351NNcircumstance .1352SENT. On1353INon pages1354NNSpage ...1355:... in1356INin the1357DTthe JA1358NPJa ,1359,, pages1360VVZpage 1761361CD@card@ ...1362:... [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]1363LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] Well1364UHWell ,1365,, how1366WRBhow different1367JJdifferent ?1368SENT? I1369PPI mean1370VVPmean ,1371,, a1372DTa marshal1373NNmarshal is1374VBZbe appointed1375VVNappoint by1376INby the1377DTthe President1378NPPresident ,1379,, right1380RBright ?1381SENT? [MR. ROSENBERG]1382LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] Yes1383NPYes .1384SENT. [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]1385LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] And1386CCand ...1387:... and1388CCand confirmed1389VVDconfirm by1390INby the1391DTthe Senate1392NPSenate ,1393,, right1394RBright ?1395SENT? [MR. ROSENBERG]1396LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] That1397DTthat 's1398VBZbe true1399JJtrue .1400SENT. [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]1401LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] Well1402UHWell ,1403,, that1404WDTthat seems1405VVZseem to1406TOto me1407PPme a1408DTa little1409JJlittle bit1410NNbit different1411JJdifferent than1412INthan ...1413:... than1414INthan ,1415,, as1416INas I1417PPI said1418VVDsay ,1419,, the1420DTthe ...1421:... you1422PPyou know1423VVPknow ,1424,, someone1425NNsomeone who1426WPwho 's1427VBZbe ,1428,, day1429NNday one1430CDone ,1431,, starting1432VVGstart at1433INat the1434DTthe bottom1435JJbottom level1436NNlevel at1437INat the1438DTthe Marshals1439NNSmarshal Service1440NNservice .1441SENT. [MR. ROSENBERG]1442LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] Well1443UHwell ,1444,, he1445PPhe did1446VVDdo work1447NNwork for1448INfor quite1449PDTquite a1450DTa while1451NNwhile as1452INas a1453DTa deputy1454JJdeputy United1455NPUnited States1456NPSStates Marshal1457NPMarshal .1458SENT. [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]1459LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] Well1460UHWell ,1461,, yeah1462RByeah ,1463,, but1464CCbut I1465PPI 'm1466VBPbe wondering1467VVGwonder whether1468INwhether or1469CCor not1470RBnot we1471PPwe should1472MDshould be1473VBbe parsing1474VVGparse out1475RPout if1476INif part1477NNpart of1478INof his1479PP$his retirement1480NNretirement seems1481VVZseem similar1482JJsimilar and1483CCand part1484NNpart not1485RBnot .1486SENT. [MR. ROSENBERG]1487LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] Well1488UHwell ,1489,, I1490PPI think1491VVPthink it1492PPit 's1493VBZbe all1494RBall similar1495JJsimilar because1496INbecause ,1497,, as1498INas a1499DTa United1500NPUnited States1501NPSStates Marshal1502NPMarshal ,1503,, even1504RBeven presidentially1505RBpresidentially appointed1506VVNappoint ,1507,, he1508PPhe still1509RBstill had1510VHDhave the1511DTthe same1512JJsame law1513NNlaw enforcement1514NNenforcement authority1515NNauthority as1516INas the1517DTthe covered1518VVNcover state1519NNstate employees1520NNSemployee .1521SENT. And1522CCand this1523DTthis is1524VBZbe the1525DTthe problem1526NNproblem with1527INwith the1528DTthe State1529NPState 's1530POS's test1531NNtest .1532SENT. The1533DTthe ...1534:... the1535DTthe inquiry1536NNinquiry should1537MDshould n't1538RBn't be1539VBbe is1540VBZbe he1541PPhe identical1542JJidentical to1543TOto certain1544JJcertain state1545NNstate employees1546NNSemployee ;1547:; is1548VBZbe ...1549:... it1550PPit 's1551VBZbe whether1552INwhether he1553PPhe 's1554VBZbe similar1555JJsimilar enough1556RBenough that1557IN/thatthat discriminatory1558JJdiscriminatory tax1559NNtax treatment1560NNtreatment is1561VBZbe justified1562VVNjustify .1563SENT. And1564CCand the1565DTthe State1566NNstate can1567MDcan 't1568RB't justify1569VVjustify discriminatory1570JJdiscriminatory tax1571NNtax treatment1572NNtreatment just1573RBjust based1574VVNbase on1575INon whether1576INwhether he1577PPhe has1578VHZhave some1579DTsome additional1580JJadditional administrative1581JJadministrative responsibilities1582NNSresponsibility ,1583,, but1584CCbut his1585PP$his basic1586JJbasic law1587NNlaw enforcement1588NNenforcement function1589NNfunction is1590VBZbe the1591DTthe same1592JJsame .1593SENT. And1594CCand the1595DTthe ...1596:... perhaps1597RBperhaps the1598DTthe most1599RBSmost important1600JJimportant point1601NNpoint ,1602,, Mr1603NPMr .1604SENT. Chief1605NPChief Justice1606NPJustice ,1607,, is1608VBZbe that1609IN/thatthat the1610DTthe State1611NPState has1612VHZhave repeatedly1613RBrepeatedly conceded1614VVNconcede throughout1615INthroughout the1616DTthe litigation1617NNlitigation that1618IN/thatthat the1619DTthe job1620NNjob duties1621NNSduty are1622VBPbe the1623DTthe same1624JJsame .1625SENT. [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]1626LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] Is1627VBZbe the1628DTthe head1629NNhead of1630INof the1631DTthe Marshals1632NNSmarshal Service1633NNservice covered1634VVDcover ?1635SENT? In1636INin other1637JJother words1638NNSword ,1639,, not1640RBnot one1641CDone of1642INof the1643DTthe state1644NNstate marshals1645NNSmarshal but1646CCbut the1647DTthe ...1648:... the1649DTthe head1650NNhead of1651INof the1652DTthe Marshals1653NNSmarshal Service1654NPService ?1655SENT? [MR. ROSENBERG]1656LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] The1657NPThe U1658NPU .1659SENT. S1660NPS .1661SENT. Marshals1662NNSmarshal Service1663NPService ?1664SENT? [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]1665LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] Yes1666NPYes .1667SENT. [MR. ROSENBERG]1668LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] I1669PPI ...1670:... I1671PPI believe1672VVPbelieve so1673RBso .1674SENT. [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]1675LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] So1676INso his1677PP$his ...1678:... his1679PP$his duties1680NNSduty are1681VBPbe the1682DTthe same1683JJsame as1684INas somebody1685NNsomebody who1686WPwho 's1687VBZbe on1688INon his1689PP$his first1690JJfirst day1691NNday ?1692SENT? [MR. ROSENBERG]1693LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] Oh1694UHoh ,1695,, you1696PPyou mean1697VVPmean the1698DTthe head1699NNhead of1700INof the1701DTthe Marshals1702NNSmarshal Service1703NNservice nationally1704RBnationally ?1705SENT? [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]1706LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] Yeah1707NPYeah .1708SENT. [MR. ROSENBERG]1709LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] Well1710UHwell ,1711,, I1712PPI do1713VVPdo n't1714RBn't know1715VVknow that1716IN/thatthat that1717DTthat person1718NNperson 's1719VBZbe in1720INin West1721NPWest Virginia1722NPVirginia ,1723,, but1724CCbut I1725PPI think1726VVPthink there1727EXthere 'd1728MDwould be1729VBbe an1730DTan argument1731NNargument that1732IN/thatthat he1733PPhe was1734VBDbe ...1735:... [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]1736LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] Well1737UHwell ,1738,, he1739PPhe lives1740VVZlive somewhere1741RBsomewhere .1742SENT. [MR. ROSENBERG]1743LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] Yeah1744NPYeah .1745SENT. I1746PPI mean1747VVPmean ,1748,, I1749PPI think1750VVPthink there1751EXthere may1752MDmay be1753VBbe an1754DTan argument1755NNargument that1756IN/thatthat he1757PPhe is1758VBZbe .1759SENT. I1760PPI think1761VVPthink that1762DTthat 's1763VBZbe a1764DTa different1765JJdifferent case1766NNcase .1767SENT. It1768PPit would1769MDwould depend1770VVdepend on1771INon the1772DTthe actual1773JJactual facts1774NNSfact of1775INof the1776DTthe job1777NNjob duties1778NNSduty .1779SENT. I1780PPI ...1781:... I1782PPI think1783VVPthink ,1784,, in1785INin this1786DTthis case1787NNcase ,1788,, whether1789INwhether it1790PPit was1791VBDbe deputy1792JJdeputy U1793NPU .1794SENT. S1795NPS .1796SENT. Marshal1797NPMarshal ,1798,, U1799NPU .1800SENT. S1801NPS .1802SENT. Marshal1803NNmarshal ,1804,, or1805CCor when1806WRBwhen he1807PPhe was1808VBDbe a1809DTa deputy1810JJdeputy sheriff1811NNsheriff ,1812,, pages1813NNSpage JA1814NPJa 1761815CD@card@ and1816CCand 1771817CD@card@ show1818VVPshow that1819IN/thatthat Mr1820NPMr .1821SENT. Dawson1822NPDawson had1823VHDhave the1824DTthe same1825JJsame job1826NNjob duties1827NNSduty .1828SENT. The1829DTthe State1830NPState 's1831POS's never1832RBnever contested1833VVNcontest that1834DTthat .1835SENT. And1836CCand ,1837,, indeed1838RBindeed ,1839,, as1840INas a1841DTa U1842NPU .1843SENT. S1844NPS .1845SENT. Marshal1846NPMarshal ,1847,, Mr1848NPMr .1849SENT. Chief1850NPChief Justice1851NPJustice ,1852,, Mr1853NPMr .1854SENT. Dawson1855NPDawson testified1856VVDtestify at1857INat those1858DTthose pages1859NNSpage that1860IN/thatthat there1861EXthere were1862VBDbe two1863CDtwo critical1864JJcritical similarities1865NNSsimilarity among1866INamong others1867NNSother .1868SENT. One1869PPone was1870VBDbe that1871IN/thatthat he1872PPhe was1873VBDbe entrusted1874VVNentrust to1875TOto enforce1876VVenforce West1877NPWest Virginia1878NPVirginia law1879NNlaw as1880INas a1881DTa U1882NPU .1883SENT. S1884NPS .1885SENT. Marshal1886NNmarshal .1887SENT. And1888CCand the1889DTthe second1890NNsecond was1891VBDbe that1892IN/thatthat ,1893,, for1894INfor fugitive1895JJfugitive task1896NNtask forces1897NNSforce ,1898,, he1899PPhe could1900MDcould deputize1901VVdeputize the1902DTthe very1903RBvery same1904JJsame state1905NNstate troopers1906NNStrooper and1907CCand deputy1908JJdeputy sheriffs1909NNSsheriff who1910WPwho are1911VBPbe exempted1912VVNexempt under1913INunder the1914DTthe West1915NPWest Virginia1916NPVirginia plan1917NNplan .1918SENT. So1919RBso ...1920:... [JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR]1921LOC[JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR] Could1922MDcould I1923PPI go1924VVgo back1925RBback to1926TOto the1927DTthe two1928CDtwo categories1929NNScategory ?1930SENT? [MR. ROSENBERG]1931LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] Yes1932NPYes .1933SENT. [JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR]1934LOC[JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR] Let1935NPLet 's1936POS's assume1937VVPassume they1938PPthey 're1939VBPbe identical1940JJidentical .1941SENT. [MR. ROSENBERG]1942LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] Uh-huh1943NPUh-huh .1944SENT. [JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR]1945LOC[JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR] All1946DTall right1947NNright ?1948SENT? And1949CCand I1950PPI know1951VVPknow that1952IN/thatthat you1953PPyou 're1954VBPbe arguing1955VVGargue that1956IN/thatthat they1957PPthey 're1958VBPbe not1959RBnot ,1960,, and1961CCand this1962DTthis may1963MDmay be1964VBbe an1965DTan issue1966NNissue ,1967,, if1968INif we1969PPwe get1970VVPget to1971TOto it1972PPit ,1973,, to1974TOto remand1975VVremand ,1976,, okay1977JJokay ?1978SENT? But1979CCbut assuming1980VVGassume they1981PPthey were1982VBDbe ,1983,, and1984CCand if1985INif the1986DTthe difference1987NNdifference was1988VBDbe as1989RBas articulated1990VVNarticulate by1991INby Respondents1992NNSrespondent here1993RBhere ,1994,, one1995PPone paid1996VVDpay more1997JJRmore than1998INthan the1999DTthe other2000JJother to2001TOto the2002DTthe pension2003NNpension plan2004NNplan ,2005,, so2006INso they2007PPthey ...2008:... the2009DTthe State2010NNstate wanted2011VVDwant to2012TOto be2013VBbe more2014RBRmore generous2015JJgenerous to2016TOto those2017DTthose who2018WPwho paid2019VVDpay more2020RBRmore ,2021,, as2022INas I2023PPI think2024VVPthink is2025VBZbe the2026DTthe case2027NNcase here2028RBhere .2029SENT. Why2030WRBwhy is2031VBZbe that2032IN/thatthat any2033DTany different2034JJdifferent in2035INin kind2036NNkind to2037TOto our2038PP$our suggestions2039NNSsuggestion in2040INin Davis2041NPDavis and2042CCand in2043INin other2044JJother places2045NNSplace that2046WDTthat ,2047,, if2048INif a2049DTa scheme2050NNscheme relied2051VVNrely on2052INon the2053DTthe benefits2054NNSbenefit paid2055VVNpay out2056RPout ,2057,, anybody2058NNanybody who2059WPwho made2060VVDmake less2061JJRless than2062INthan $2063$$ 15,0002064CD@card@ a2065DTa year2066NNyear in2067INin retirement2068NNretirement benefits2069NNSbenefit was2070VBDbe exempt2071JJexempt ,2072,, but2073CCbut someone2074NNsomeone who2075WPwho made2076VVDmake more2077RBRmore was2078VBDbe n't2079RBn't ,2080,, why2081WRBwhy is2082VBZbe that2083IN/thatthat different2084JJdifferent in2085INin kind2086NNkind to2087TOto this2088DTthis situation2089NNsituation ?2090SENT? [MR. ROSENBERG]2091LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] Several2092JJseveral responses2093NNSresponse ,2094,, Justice2095NPJustice Sotomayor2096NPSotomayor .2097SENT. First2098RBfirst ,2099,, it2100PPit 's2101VBZbe different2102JJdifferent in2103INin kind2104NNkind here2105RBhere because2106INbecause it2107PPit 's2108VBZbe not2109RBnot the2110DTthe line2111NNline the2112DTthe State2113NPState drew2114VVDdraw .2115SENT. The2116DTthe State2117NPState did2118VVDdo n't2119RBn't draw2120VVdraw a2121DTa line2122NNline based2123VVNbase on2124INon benefits2125NNSbenefit .2126SENT. They2127PPthey could2128MDcould have2129VHhave .2130SENT. They2131PPthey could2132MDcould have2133VHhave done2134VVNdo a2135DTa facially2136RBfacially neutral2137JJneutral scheme2138NNscheme that2139WDTthat perhaps2140RBperhaps exempted2141VVDexempt a2142DTa certain2143JJcertain contribution2144NNcontribution rate2145NNrate or2146CCor a2147DTa certain2148JJcertain benefit2149NNbenefit payout2150NNpayout ,2151,, but2152CCbut that2153DTthat 's2154VBZbe not2155RBnot what2156WPwhat they2157PPthey did2158VVDdo here2159RBhere .2160SENT. [JUSTICE KAGAN]2161LOC[JUSTICE KAGAN] What2162WPWhat difference2163NNdifference does2164VVZdo that2165RBthat make2166VVmake ?2167SENT? I2168PPI mean2169VVPmean ,2170,, let2171VVlet 's2172VBZbe assume2173VVassume a2174DTa situation2175NNsituation where2176WRBwhere the2177DTthe State2178NNstate says2179VVZsay state2180NNstate employees2181NNSemployee who2182WPwho are2183VBPbe in2184INin one2185CDone of2186INof these2187DTthese four2188CDfour plans2189NNSplan ,2190,, and2191CCand let2192VVPlet 's2193VBZbe further2194RBRfurther assume2195VVassume that2196DTthat everybody2197NNeverybody in2198INin those2199DTthose four2200CDfour plans2201NNSplan receives2202VVZreceive a2203DTa lesser2204JJRlesser benefit2205NNbenefit or2206CCor ,2207,, alternatively2208RBalternatively ,2209,, contributes2210VVZcontribute a2211DTa greater2212JJRgreat percentage2213NNpercentage of2214INof their2215PP$their salary2216NNsalary to2217TOto the2218DTthe plan2219NNplan .2220SENT. So2221RBso ,2222,, you2223PPyou know2224VVPknow ,2225,, it2226PPit 's2227VBZbe ...2228:... it2229PPit 's2230VBZbe ...2231:... it2232PPit 's2233VBZbe ...2234:... the2235DTthe State2236NPState has2237VHZhave just2238RBjust decided2239VVNdecide ,2240,, look2241VVlook ,2242,, this2243DTthis is2244VBZbe a2245DTa convenient2246JJconvenient way2247NNway of2248INof identifying2249VVGidentify these2250DTthese people2251NNSpeople ,2252,, but2253CCbut ,2254,, in2255INin fact2256NNfact ,2257,, all2258PDTall the2259DTthe people2260NNSpeople in2261INin these2262DTthese plans2263NNSplan have2264VHPhave that2265DTthat characteristic2266NNcharacteristic ,2267,, which2268WDTwhich makes2269VVZmake them2270PPthem different2271JJdifferent from2272INfrom the2273DTthe federal2274JJfederal employees2275NNSemployee ,2276,, that2277WDTthat they2278PPthey contribute2279VVPcontribute more2280JJRmore or2281CCor that2282IN/thatthat they2283PPthey receive2284VVPreceive less2285JJRless in2286INin other2287JJother benefits2288NNSbenefit .2289SENT. [MR. ROSENBERG]2290LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] Because2291INbecause that2292WDTthat 's2293VBZbe still2294RBstill facially2295RBfacially discriminatory2296JJdiscriminatory ,2297,, Justice2298NPJustice Kagan2299NPKagan .2300SENT. If2301INif the2302DTthe State2303NPState had2304VHDhave actually2305RBactually done2306VVNdo a2307DTa neutral2308JJneutral criterion2309NNcriterion and2310CCand set2311VVset benefit2312NNbenefit levels2313NNSlevel ,2314,, even2315RBeven if2316INif no2317DTno federal2318JJfederal employees2319NNSemployee then2320RBthen qualified2321VVNqualify ,2322,, it2323PPit would2324MDwould give2325VVgive the2326DTthe federal2327JJfederal government2328NNgovernment the2329DTthe opportunity2330NNopportunity to2331TOto redo2332VVredo its2333PP$its benefit2334NNbenefit plan2335NNplan so2336RBso that2337IN/thatthat they2338PPthey could2339MDcould potentially2340RBpotentially qualify2341VVqualify under2342INunder the2343DTthe state2344NNstate exemption2345NNexemption .2346SENT. Here2347RBhere ,2348,, there2349EXthere 's2350VBZbe no2351DTno such2352JJsuch opportunity2353NNopportunity ,2354,, so2355RBso it2356PPit 's2357VBZbe still2358RBstill facially2359RBfacially discriminatory2360JJdiscriminatory .2361SENT. And2362CCand that2363DTthat 's2364VBZbe what2365WPwhat Section2366NPSection 1112367NP@card@ prohibits2368VVZprohibit .2369SENT. The2370DTthe State2371NPState could2372MDcould have2373VHhave done2374VVNdo a2375DTa number2376NNnumber of2377INof things2378NNSthing here2379RBhere ,2380,, but2381CCbut it2382PPit did2383VVDdo n't2384RBn't .2385SENT. The2386DTthe things2387NNSthing that2388IN/thatthat the2389DTthe State2390NPState proffers2391NNSproffer in2392INin its2393PP$its brief2394NNbrief as2395INas the2396DTthe supposedly2397RBsupposedly distinguishing2398VVGdistinguish financial2399JJfinancial characteristics2400NNScharacteristic ,2401,, the2402DTthe State2403NPState concedes2404VVZconcede they2405PPthey have2406VHhave to2407TOto be2408VBbe applied2409VVNapply even-handedly2410RBeven-handedly to2411TOto be2412VBbe able2413JJable to2414TOto be2415VBbe legitimate2416JJlegitimate differentiators2417NNSdifferentiator between2418INbetween tax2419NNtax winners2420NNSwinner and2421CCand tax2422NNtax losers2423NNSloser .2424SENT. But2425CCbut ,2426,, if2427INif you2428PPyou look2429VVPlook at2430INat the2431DTthe record2432NNrecord ,2433,, pages2434NNSpage JA2435NPJa 282436CD@card@ and2437CCand 292438CD@card@ ,2439,, the2440DTthe chart2441NNchart there2442RBthere ,2443,, it2444PPit makes2445VVZmake it2446PPit abundantly2447RBabundantly clear2448VVclear that2449DTthat none2450NNnone of2451INof these2452DTthese are2453VBPbe even-handedly2454RBeven-handedly applied2455VVNapply even2456RBeven within2457INwithin the2458DTthe state2459NNstate .2460SENT. So2461RBso there2462EXthere are2463VBPbe some2464DTsome plans2465NNSplan with2466INwith higher2467JJRhigh benefits2468NNSbenefit that2469WDTthat are2470VBPbe exempted2471VVNexempt .2472SENT. Some2473DTsome not2474RBnot .2475SENT. There2476EXthere are2477VBPbe some2478DTsome plans2479NNSplan where2480WRBwhere there2481EXthere 's2482VBZbe entitlement2483NNentitlement to2484TOto Social2485NPSocial Security2486NPSecurity that2487WDTthat are2488VBPbe exempted2489VVNexempt .2490SENT. Some2491DTsome not2492RBnot .2493SENT. Some2494DTsome higher2495JJRhigh benefit2496NNbenefit rates2497NNSrate .2498SENT. [JUSTICE KAGAN]2499LOC[JUSTICE KAGAN] Well2500UHwell ,2501,, I2502PPI guess2503VVPguess my2504PP$my hypothetical2505JJhypothetical was2506VBDbe meant2507VVNmean to2508TOto take2509VVtake that2510IN/thatthat off2511INoff the2512DTthe table2513NNtable .2514SENT. [MR. ROSENBERG]2515LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] Sure2516NPSure .2517SENT. [JUSTICE KAGAN]2518LOC[JUSTICE KAGAN] To2519TOTo say2520VVsay assuming2521VVGassume that2522IN/thatthat that2523DTthat 's2524VBZbe not2525RBnot true2526JJtrue ...2527:... [MR. ROSENBERG]2528LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] Right2529RBright .2530SENT. [JUSTICE KAGAN]2531LOC[JUSTICE KAGAN] ...2532:... and2533CCand the2534DTthe State2535NPState really2536RBreally has2537VHZhave categorized2538VVNcategorize precisely2539RBprecisely as2540RBas ...2541:... as2542RBas to2543TOto benefit2544VVbenefit levels2545NNSlevel or2546CCor contribution2547NNcontribution levels2548NNSlevel but2549CCbut not2550RBnot in2551INin those2552DTthose terms2553NNSterm ,2554,, you2555PPyou 're2556VBPbe ...2557:... you2558PPyou know2559VVPknow ,2560,, not2561RBnot in2562INin those2563DTthose terms2564NNSterm ,2565,, and2566CCand you2567PPyou 're2568VBPbe saying2569VVGsay that2570IN/thatthat in2571INin itself2572PPitself is2573VBZbe impermissible2574JJimpermissible ?2575SENT? [MR. ROSENBERG]2576LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] Right2577NPRight ,2578,, because2579INbecause it2580PPit 's2581VBZbe facially2582RBfacially discriminatory2583JJdiscriminatory .2584SENT. And2585CCand ...2586:... and2587CCand it2588PPit does2589VVZdo n't2590RBn't provide2591VVprovide any2592DTany opportunity2593NNopportunity for2594INfor any2595DTany federal2596JJfederal employees2597NNSemployee to2598TOto ever2599RBever be2600VBbe part2601NNpart of2602INof it2603PPit .2604SENT. It2605PPit would2606MDwould be2607VBbe different2608JJdifferent if2609INif it2610PPit were2611VBDbe done2612VVNdo as2613INas a2614DTa facially2615RBfacially neutral2616JJneutral law2617NNlaw .2618SENT. In2619INin fact2620NNfact ,2621,, most2622RBSmost facially2623RBfacially neutral2624JJneutral laws2625NNSlaw ,2626,, regardless2627RBregardless of2628INof whether2629INwhether there2630EXthere are2631VBPbe a2632DTa meaningful2633JJmeaningful number2634NNnumber of2635INof federal2636JJfederal employees2637NNSemployee who2638WPwho qualify2639VVPqualify or2640CCor not2641RBnot ,2642,, would2643MDwould likely2644RBlikely pass2645VVpass scrutiny2646NNscrutiny under2647INunder Section2648NPSection 1112649CD@card@ .2650SENT. The2651DTthe first2652JJfirst and2653CCand critical2654JJcritical problem2655NNproblem here2656RBhere is2657VBZbe that2658IN/thatthat this2659DTthis is2660VBZbe facially2661RBfacially discriminatory2662JJdiscriminatory .2663SENT. The2664DTthe second2665JJsecond problem2666NNproblem is2667VBZbe what2668WPwhat I2669PPI mentioned2670VVDmention ,2671,, that2672IN/thatthat the2673DTthe line2674NNline the2675DTthe State2676NNstate drew2677VVDdraw is2678VBZbe based2679VVNbase on2680INon job2681NNjob duties2682NNSduty .2683SENT. The2684DTthe job2685NNjob duties2686NNSduty are2687VBPbe identical2688JJidentical .2689SENT. And2690CCand the2691DTthe financial2692JJfinancial characteristics2693NNScharacteristic the2694DTthe State2695NNstate proffers2696NNSproffer were2697VBDbe not2698RBnot even-handedly2699RBeven-handedly applied2700VVNapply to2701TOto the2702DTthe State2703NNstate and2704CCand plainly2705RBplainly were2706VBDbe n't2707RBn't involved2708VVNinvolve in2709INin the2710DTthe line2711NNline that2712IN/thatthat the2713DTthe State2714NPState actually2715RBactually drew2716VVDdraw .2717SENT. The2718DTthe State2719NPState also2720RBalso argues2721VVZargue that2722IN/thatthat the2723DTthe ...2724:... the2725DTthe lower2726JJRlow court2727NNcourt opinion2728NNopinion was2729VBDbe correct2730JJcorrect ,2731,, notwithstanding2732INnotwithstanding Davis2733NPDavis ,2734,, because2735INbecause only2736RBonly a2737DTa fairly2738RBfairly narrow2739JJnarrow category2740NNcategory of2741INof State2742NPState employees2743NNSemployee are2744VBPbe exempted2745VVNexempt .2746SENT. But2747CCbut this2748DTthis argument2749NNargument was2750VBDbe expressly2751RBexpressly rejected2752VVNreject in2753INin Davis2754NPDavis ,2755,, and2756CCand it2757PPit can2758MDcan 't2759RB't carry2760VVcarry the2761DTthe day2762NNday here2763RBhere .2764SENT. In2765INin Jefferson2766NPJefferson County2767NPCounty ,2768,, for2769INfor example2770NNexample ,2771,, this2772DTthis Court2773NPCourt looked2774VVDlook at2775INat a2776DTa fairly2777RBfairly narrow2778JJnarrow category2779NNcategory ,2780,, state2781NNstate judges2782NNSjudge versus2783CCversus federal2784JJfederal judges2785NNSjudge ,2786,, and2787CCand only2788RBonly upheld2789VVDuphold that2790IN/thatthat taxation2791NNtaxation scheme2792NNscheme because2793INbecause the2794DTthe federal2795JJfederal judges2796NNSjudge and2797CCand state2798NNstate judges2799NNSjudge were2800VBDbe treated2801VVNtreat the2802DTthe same2803JJsame .2804SENT. And2805CCand ,2806,, indeed2807RBindeed ,2808,, that2809DTthat exemption2810NNexemption was2811VBDbe facially2812RBfacially neutral2813JJneutral because2814INbecause there2815EXthere were2816VBDbe people2817NNSpeople who2818WPwho got2819VVDget the2820DTthe exemption2821NNexemption who2822WPwho were2823VBDbe state2824NNstate employees2825NNSemployee and2826CCand people2827NNSpeople who2828WPwho did2829VVDdo n't2830RBn't who2831WPwho were2832VBDbe state2833NNstate employees2834NNSemployee ,2835,, and2836CCand the2837DTthe same2838JJsame ,2839,, some2840DTsome federal2841JJfederal employees2842NNSemployee got2843VVDget the2844DTthe exemption2845NNexemption and2846CCand some2847DTsome did2848VVDdo n't2849RBn't .2850SENT. The2851DTthe State2852NPState also2853RBalso argues2854VVZargue that2855IN/thatthat there2856EXthere has2857VHZhave to2858TOto be2859VBbe undue2860JJundue interference2861NNinterference with2862INwith the2863DTthe federal2864JJfederal government2865NNgovernment .2866SENT. But2867CCbut that2868WDTthat also2869RBalso has2870VHZhave never2871RBnever been2872VBNbe the2873DTthe test2874NNtest .2875SENT. That2876DTthat was2877VBDbe rejected2878VVNreject in2879INin Davis2880NPDavis as2881INas well2882RBwell .2883SENT. Certainly2884RBcertainly ,2885,, if2886INif you2887PPyou look2888VVPlook at2889INat United2890NPUnited States2891NPSStates versus2892CCversus Mexico2893NPMexico in2894INin Footnote2895NNfootnote 112896CD@card@ ,2897,, the2898DTthe Court2899NPCourt makes2900VVZmake very2901RBvery clear2902VVclear that2903IN/thatthat you2904PPyou could2905MDcould have2906VHhave interference2907NNinterference with2908INwith a2909DTa government2910NNgovernment or2911CCor discrimination2912NNdiscrimination ,2913,, either2914CCeither of2915INof which2916WDTwhich invalidates2917VVZinvalidate the2918DTthe scheme2919NNscheme under2920INunder Section2921NPSection 1112922CD@card@ .2923SENT. Finally2924RBfinally ,2925,, the2926DTthe State2927NPState argues2928VVZargue that2929IN/thatthat we2930PPwe 've2931VHPhave talked2932VVNtalk about2933RBabout that2934IN/thatthat you2935PPyou have2936VHPhave to2937TOto compare2938VVcompare to2939TOto the2940DTthe most2941RBSmost comparable2942JJcomparable individual2943NNindividual .2944SENT. We2945PPwe 've2946VHPhave already2947RBalready mentioned2948VVNmention that2949IN/thatthat it2950PPit really2951RBreally is2952VBZbe n't2953RBn't that2954DTthat inquiry2955NNinquiry .2956SENT. The2957DTthe inquiry2958NNinquiry is2959VBZbe one2960CDone of2961INof similarity2962NNsimilarity .2963SENT. Is2964VBZbe ...2965:... is2966VBZbe the2967DTthe state2968NNstate retiree2969NNretiree or2970CCor employee2971NNemployee similar2972JJsimilar enough2973RBenough to2974TOto the2975DTthe federal2976JJfederal retiree2977NNretiree or2978CCor employee2979NNemployee that2980IN/thatthat there2981EXthere should2982MDshould n't2983RBn't be2984VBbe discrimination2985NNdiscrimination ?2986SENT? [JUSTICE BREYER]2987LOC[JUSTICE BREYER] Suppose2988VVsuppose what2989WPwhat ...2990:... suppose2991VVPsuppose that2992IN/thatthat the2993DTthe person2994NNperson who2995WPwho 's2996VBZbe drafting2997VVGdraft this2998DTthis bill2999NNbill for3000INfor the3001DTthe state3002NNstate is3003VBZbe trying3004VVGtry to3005TOto ...3006:... they3007PPthey think3008VVPthink that3009IN/thatthat the3010DTthe police3011NNpolice officers3012NNSofficer and3013CCand the3014DTthe others3015NNSother really3016RBreally ...3017:... they3018PPthey are3019VBPbe n't3020RBn't paid3021VVNpay very3022RBvery much3023RBmuch and3024CCand it3025PPit 's3026VBZbe a3027DTa particularly3028RBparticularly dangerous3029JJdangerous job3030NNjob ,3031,, and3032CCand you3033PPyou know3034VVPknow those3035DTthose characteristics3036NNScharacteristic ,3037,, so3038RBso ...3039:... so3040RBso they3041PPthey think3042VVPthink they3043PPthey should3044MDshould give3045VVgive them3046PPthem a3047DTa tax3048NNtax break3049NNbreak .3050SENT. And3051CCand then3052RBthen someone3053NNsomeone says3054VVZsay ,3055,, well3056UHwell ,3057,, what3058WPwhat about3059INabout the3060DTthe federal3061JJfederal marshals3062NNSmarshal ,3063,, they3064PPthey do3065VVPdo the3066DTthe same3067JJsame thing3068NNthing ?3069SENT? And3070CCand then3071RBthen the3072DTthe person3073NNperson replies3074VVZreply :3075:: Yes3076UHyes ,3077,, they3078PPthey do3079VVPdo ,3080,, but3081CCbut they3082PPthey get3083VVPget paid3084VVNpay a3085DTa lot3086NNlot more3087RBRmore ,3088,, you3089PPyou see3090VVPsee .3091SENT. And3092CCand so3093RBso the3094DTthe feds3095NNSfed pay3096VVPpay them3097PPthem a3098DTa lot3099NNlot more3100RBRmore than3101INthan we3102PPwe pay3103VVPpay the3104DTthe state3105NNstate people3106NNSpeople .3107SENT. So3108RBso that3109DTthat 's3110VBZbe why3111WRBwhy we3112PPwe 're3113VBPbe doing3114VVGdo it3115PPit .3116SENT. Okay3117JJokay ?3118SENT? Is3119VBZbe that3120IN/thatthat okay3121JJokay or3122CCor not3123RBnot ?3124SENT? [MR. ROSENBERG]3125LOC[MR. ROSENBERG] It3126PPit ...3127:... it3128PPit 's3129VBZbe not3130RBnot for3131INfor three3132CDthree reasons3133NNSreason ,3134,, Justice3135NPJustice Breyer3136NPBreyer .3137SENT. First3138RBfirst ,3139,, it3140PPit 's3141VBZbe facially3142RBfacially discriminatory3143JJdiscriminatory .3144SENT. Secondly3145RBsecondly ,3146,, the3147DTthe motive3148NNmotive itself3149PPitself does3150VVZdo n't3151RBn't matter3152VVmatter ,3153,, as3154INas this3155DTthis Court3156NPCourt said3157VVDsay in3158INin Davis3159NPDavis .3160SENT. And3161CCand ,3162,, third3163JJthird ,3164,, the3165DTthe State3166NPState could3167MDcould always3168RBalways extend3169VVextend that3170DTthat benefit3171NNbenefit to3172TOto federal3173JJfederal employees3174NNSemployee .3175SENT. For3176INfor example3177NNexample ,3178,, in3179INin this3180DTthis case3181NNcase ,3182,, Section3183NPSection 123184CD@card@ (3185(( c3186LSc )3187)) (3188(( 53189LS5 )3190)) ,3191,, which3192WDTwhich is3193VBZbe the3194DTthe broader3195JJRbroad exemption3196NNexemption that3197WDTthat only3198RBonly gets3199VVZget a3200DTa small3201JJsmall ...3202:... a3203DTa smaller3204JJRsmall exemption3205NNexemption ,3206,, was3207VBDbe specifically3208RBspecifically extended3209VVNextend to3210TOto federal3211JJfederal employees3212NNSemployee two3213CDtwo weeks3214NNSweek after3215INafter the3216DTthe Davis3217NPDavis decision3218NNdecision ,3219,, but3220CCbut the3221DTthe State3222NPState did3223VVDdo n't3224RBn't extend3225VVextend 123226CD@card@ (3227(( c3228LSc )3229)) (3230(( 63231CD6 )3232)) ,3233,, and3234CCand ,3235,, therefore3236RBtherefore ,3237,, it3238PPit 's3239VBZbe facially3240RBfacially discriminatory3241JJdiscriminatory .3242SENT. If3243INif I3244PPI could3245MDcould reserve3246VVreserve the3247DTthe rest3248NNrest of3249INof my3250PP$my time3251NNtime ,3252,, Mr3253NPMr .3254SENT. Chief3255NPChief Justice3256NPJustice .3257SENT. [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]3258LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] Thank3259VVthank you3260PPyou ,3261,, counsel3262NNcounsel .3263SENT. Mr3264NPMr .3265SENT. Huston3266NPHuston .3267SENT.