Alaska v. Arctic Maid
366 U.S. 199 · Decided May 1, 1961 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Alaska v. Arctic Maid was decided on May 1, 1961 by a vote of 8–1. The Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case. Justice William O. Douglas wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “State or local government tax” in the Economic Activity area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 366 U.S. 199 · 81 S. Ct. 929 · 6 L. Ed. 2d 227 · 1961 U.S. LEXIS 1954
- Docket number
- 106
- Decided
- May 1, 1961
- Argued
- March 23, 1961
- Court era
- Warren Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority opinion
- William O. Douglas
- Opinion assigned by
- Earl Warren
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- State or local government tax
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Legal provision
- Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3 (interstate commerce clause)
- Type of law
- Constitution
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Hugo L. Black | Majority | |
| Justice Felix Frankfurter | Majority | |
| Justice William O. Douglas | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Tom C. Clark | Majority | |
| Chief Justice Earl Warren | Majority | |
| Justice John M. Harlan II | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Charles E. Whittaker | Majority | |
| Justice Potter Stewart | Majority |
Full case caption
Alaska v. Arctic Maid et al.
SCDB identifiers: case 1960-086, docket 1960-086-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “State or local government tax”
- Moses Lake Homes, Inc. v. Grant County
- Laurens Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. South Carolina Tax Commission
- Thomas v. Virginia
- Scripto, Inc. v. Carson
- State Board of Insurance v. Todd Shipyards Corp.
- Central Railroad Company of Pennsylvania v. PennsylvaniaLaw held unconstitutional
Cases on the same legal provision: Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3 (interstate commerce clause)
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. Sav-On-Drugs, Inc.
- Huron Portland Cement Co. v. City of Detroit
- Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.Law held unconstitutional
- Colorado Anti-Discrimination Commission v. Continental Air Lines, Inc.
- Head v. New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry
- Polar Ice Cream & Creamery Co. v. AndrewsLaw held unconstitutional
Same Term, same area (Economic Activity)
- Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc.
- Waterman Steamship Corp. v. Dugan & McNamara, Inc.
- New York v. Henagan
- Thomas v. Virginia
- United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co.
- Lewis v. Manufacturers National Bank of Detroit
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error