Reaffirming the Scope of the Tax Injunction Act and the Requirement of Without-Prejudice Dismissals
Commentary on Vonn Capel v. Pasco County (11th Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

In Vonn Capel v. Pasco County, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revisited the perennial jurisdictional barrier erected by the Tax Injunction Act (“TIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1341, and clarified two practical points that will resonate in future federal-court litigation over state taxes:

1. The label “non-taxpayer” does not circumvent the TIA when the relief sought would restrain assessment, levy, or collection of state taxes.
2. When a complaint is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the TIA (or any jurisdictional doctrine), the dismissal must be without prejudice.

Parties: Pro se appellants Vonn Capel and Benjamin Blanchard challenged Florida’s ad valorem property-tax regime, naming Pasco County, its Property Appraiser, Tax Collector, and officials Mike Wells and Mike Fasano as defendants.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit, in a per curiam non-argument calendar decision, affirmed the district court’s determination that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the TIA and principles of comity, and upheld the denial of jurisdictional discovery. However, the Court modified the district court’s order to state that the dismissal is without prejudice, not with prejudice.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Williams v. City of Dothan, 745 F.2d 1406 (11th Cir. 1984)
  Provided the two-part TIA test (requested relief + adequacy of state remedy). The Court applied Williams verbatim.
• A Bonding Co. v. Sunnuck, 629 F.2d 1127 (5th Cir. 1980) & Noble v. Joint City-County Board, 672 F.2d 872 (11th Cir. 1982)
  Established that even claims for money damages hinging on the legality of a tax assessment are barred by the TIA and comity. The panel used these cases to dispatch the appellants’ damages counts.
• Fair Assessment in Real Estate Association v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981)
  Supreme Court authority barring federal damages actions that would invalidate state-tax systems. Re-affirmed the comity rationale independent of the TIA.
• Behr v. Campbell, 8 F.4th 1206 (11th Cir. 2021) & ACLU of Fla. v. City of Sarasota, 859 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2017)
  Guided standards of review: de novo for jurisdiction, abuse of discretion for denial of jurisdictional discovery.
• Turner v. Jordan, 117 F.4th 1289 (11th Cir. 2024); Osceola v. Florida Dep’t of Revenue, 893 F.2d 1231 (11th Cir. 1990); Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393 (1982)
  Demonstrated that Florida law supplies a “plain, speedy and efficient” remedy through its statutory tax-challenge procedures (§§ 194.011, 194.171, Fla. Stat.).
• Stalley ex rel. U.S. v. Orlando Regional Healthcare System, 524 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2008) & Crotwell v. Hockman-Lewis Ltd., 734 F.2d 767 (11th Cir. 1984)
  Provided the rule that jurisdictional dismissals must be without prejudice, which the panel invoked to modify the lower court’s order.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Application of the TIA test.
   (a) The requested relief—injunction against assessment and collection—squarely seeks to “enjoin, suspend, or restrain” state taxation.   (b) Florida’s administrative and judicial review channels (VABs, circuit courts, statutory refund actions) constitute a “plain, speedy and efficient” remedy. Because both prongs are satisfied, federal jurisdiction is barred.
2. “Non-Taxpayer” Status is Irrelevant.
   The Court rejected appellants’ attempt to escape the TIA by styling themselves as “non-taxpayers.” The Act focuses on the effect of the relief, not the label attached to the litigant. The panel further observed that Capel in fact met the statutory definition of “taxpayer,” while Blanchard could litigate in state court either with Capel’s authorization or upon paying the tax himself.
3. Damages Claims Also Barred.
   Even if the TIA alone did not foreclose damages, principles of comity under McNary independently mandated dismissal.
4. Jurisdictional Discovery Properly Denied.
   Because the jurisdictional facts were not genuinely in dispute, the limited right to discovery recognized in ACLU of Fla. never attached.
5. Procedural Correction—Without Prejudice.
   Following Stalley and Crotwell, the Court modified the judgment. A court that lacks jurisdiction lacks authority to enter a merits adjudication; therefore, dismissal must be without prejudice, preserving the plaintiff’s ability to pursue relief in the proper forum.

3.3 Potential Impact

• Clarifies Futility of Federal “Non-Taxpayer” Suits.
  Litigants cannot avoid the TIA by re-branding themselves; the focus will remain on the substance of the relief sought.
• Fortifies State-Court Primacy in Tax Matters.
  By underscoring the adequacy of Florida’s remedies, the decision reinforces deference to state tribunals and discourages parallel federal lawsuits.
• Practical Guidance on Pleading and Dismissal.
  Courts and practitioners are reminded to dismiss jurisdictionally barred actions without prejudice, avoiding improper claim-preclusion consequences.
• Pro Se Litigation.
  The opinion provides a blueprint for district courts to handle similar pro se tax challenges quickly, citing abundant precedent and avoiding unnecessary discovery.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Tax Injunction Act (TIA)

A federal statute that prevents federal courts from interfering with state tax administration when the state offers an adequate avenue to contest the tax.

Plain, Speedy, and Efficient Remedy

The state procedures must allow taxpayers a timely hearing and judicial review of all constitutional and statutory objections.

Comity

A judicial doctrine of respect for state functions; even where the TIA technically ends, federal courts still abstain from adjudicating state-tax disputes unless absolutely necessary.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The authority of a court to hear a specific type of claim. If lacking, the court must dismiss without reaching the merits.

Dismissal “With” vs. “Without” Prejudice

“With prejudice” ends the case permanently; “without prejudice” allows the plaintiff to re-file in a competent forum. Jurisdictional dismissals are always without prejudice.

Jurisdictional Discovery

Limited discovery permitted where facts necessary to establish jurisdiction are disputed. Denied here because no such factual dispute existed.

5. Conclusion

Vonn Capel v. Pasco County does not break new doctrinal ground so much as it reinforces two core principles: the breadth of the Tax Injunction Act and the procedural rigor required when dismissing for want of jurisdiction. By rejecting the “non-taxpayer” loophole and correcting the district court’s “with prejudice” error, the Eleventh Circuit offers clear guidance to litigants, counsel, and trial courts alike. Future plaintiffs seeking to challenge state or local taxes in federal court must reckon with this decision: unless state remedies are demonstrably inadequate—an exceedingly high bar—the federal courthouse door remains closed, but it must be closed gently, with dismissal without prejudice, preserving the state’s primary role in tax adjudication.