Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/635

 502US2$28N 02-10-99 15:12:54 PAGES OPINPGT

Cite as: 502 U. S. 437 (1992)

477

Thomas, J., dissenting

income-tax revenue.) Under today’s opinion, a State that can show any loss in tax revenue—even a de minimis loss, see ante, at 452–453, and n. 11—that can be traced (albeit loosely) to the action of another State can apparently proceed directly to this Court to challenge that action. Perhaps the Court is not concerned about that possibility because of its “discretion” in managing its original docket. But, having extended the original jurisdiction to one State’s claim based on its tax-collector status, the Court cannot, in the exercise of discretion, refuse to entertain future disputes based on the same theory. That would be the exercise not of discretion, but of caprice. I respectfully dissent.