Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/340

 546US1

Unit: $U11

[08-22-08 15:19:53] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 546 U. S. 95 (2005)

129

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

F. 3d, at 986. “Kansas’ interest,” as the Court of Appeals observed, “is not at its strongest.” Id., at 987. By effec­ tively taxing the Nation Station, Kansas would be deriving revenue “primarily from value generated on the reservation” by the Nation’s casino. Ibid. Moreover, the revenue Kan­ sas would gain from applying its tax to fuel destined for the Nation Station appears insubstantial when compared with the total revenue ($6.1 billion in 2004) the State annually collects through the tax. See id., at 982; Brief for Respond­ ent 12 (observing that “[t]he tax revenues at issue—roughly $300,000 annually—are less than one-tenth of one percent of the total state fuel tax revenues”). The Court asserts that “Kansas uses the proceeds from its fuel tax to pay for a signiﬁcant portion of the costs of main­ taining the roads and bridges on the Nation’s reservation.” Ante, at 115. The record reveals a different reality. Ac­ cording to the afﬁdavit of the Director of the Nation’s Road and Bridge Department, Kansas and its subdivisions have failed to provide proper maintenance even on their own roads running through the reservation. App. 79. As a result, the Nation has had to assume responsibility for a steadily grow­ ing number of road miles within the reservation (roughly 118 of the 212 total miles in 2000). Ibid.; see also Brief for Respondent 3, 40, 44–45. Of greater signiﬁcance, Kansas expends none of its fuel tax revenue on the upkeep or im­ provement of tribally owned reservation roads. 379 F. 3d, at 986–987; cf. Ramah, 458 U. S., at 843, n. 7 (“This case would be different if the State were actively seeking tax revenues for the purpose of constructing, or assisting in the effort to provide, adequate [tribal services].”). In contrast, Kansas sets aside a signiﬁcant percentage of its fuel tax rev­ enues (over 40% in 1999) for counties and localities. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 79–3425 (2003 Cum. Supp.); see also § 79–34,142 (1997) (prescribing allocation formula); 1999 Kan. Sess. Laws, ch. 137, § 37, p. 1124. And, as indicated earlier, supra, at 118–120, Kansas accords the Nation no dispensation based