In a unanimous decision issued on September 25, 2025, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidated the City of Pittsburgh’s controversial Nonresident Sports Facility Usage Fee (commonly referred to as the “Jock Tax”), a 3% levy imposed solely on nonresident athletes and entertainers who earn income at the City’s publicly funded sports stadiums. Pittsburgh residents were exempt from the fee. The Court held that the tax violated the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which requires that taxes be applied equally to similarly situated taxpayers.
The case—National Hockey League Players Ass’n, et al. v. City of Pittsburgh, No. 20 WAP 2024, 2025 Pa. LEXIS ___ (Pa. Sept. 25, 2025)—was brought by players associations from the NHL, MLB, and NFL, along with individual active and retired nonresident athletes (“Athletes”). The Athletes challenged the Jock Tax, arguing that it unfairly targeted nonresidents while exempting residents from the same burden. Only residents of Pittsburgh are subject to a 1% earned income tax and a 2% school district tax, as state law prohibits school districts from taxing nonresidents and local law exempts nonresidents from the earned income tax as long as they are subject to the Jock Tax. Pittsburgh argued that the Jock Tax merely equalized the overall tax burden between residents and nonresidents (i.e., 1% earned income tax plus a 2% school district tax equals a “total effective tax rate of three percent”).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected this rationale. It clarified that “uniformity” in taxation does not require absolute equality, but it does demand that any classification be based on a legitimate, non-arbitrary distinction. The Court emphasized that without a “concrete justification” for treating nonresidents differently from residents, the tax violates the Uniformity Clause. Importantly, the Court held that aggregating separate taxes from different entities—such as the City and the school district—does not satisfy the uniformity requirement when assessing the fairness of a single municipal tax. This interpretation reinforces the principles articulated in Danyluk v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 178 A.2d 609 (Pa. 1962), which held that residency cannot be used to impose disparate tax burdens on individuals engaged in the same activities.
The decision has broader implications for municipalities seeking to impose targeted taxes on nonresidents. It also provides clearer guidance on the meaning of “uniformity” in state tax law, underscores the need for constitutionally sound justifications when differentiating tax treatment based on residency, and marks a significant victory for taxpayers in the ongoing debate over local taxation and fairness.
Contact the Authors: Drew Hemmings, Sam Grilli, Matt Musano
