Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue

In dissent, Justice Rehnquist questioned the Court's rationale in determining that a tax system financially favoring the press poses a threat. He could not see how freedom was diminished by Minnesota's actions. He then calculated the cost of imposing the standard state sales tax, as suggested by the majority, rather than the special use tax. The Star Tribune would have paid over $3.6 million for the period a refund was sought, rather than the $1.2 million actually paid. Rehnquist was also troubled by the Court asserting itself into a state legislature's business. The Court had traditionally avoided involvement in the development of states' tax schemes, particularly where an inappropriate burden did not clearly exist. In sum, Rehnquist found the Court's decision, based on an "unprecedented" application of a "differential treatment" standard, a very hollow victory for the Star Tribune.