In 2006, the Supreme Court ordered the case be dismissed because the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit in federal court. The Supreme Court, in holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit in federal court, did not address whether the tax credit violated the Commerce Clause. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the investment tax credit violated the Commerce Clause and reversed this part of the lower court's decision. Legislation introduced in the 109th Congress

The Economic Development Act of 2005 ( H.R. 2471 and S. 1066 ) would give states the authority to offer incentives like the investment tax credit struck down by the Sixth Circuit in Cuno .
In 2005, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Cuno v. DaimlerChrsyler that Ohio's investment tax credit violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The case received significant attention because most states have similar credits. In 2006, the Supreme Court held that the Cuno plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the credit in federal court. Because the Supreme Court based its decision on the issue of standing, it did not address whether the credit violated the Commerce Clause. Introduced prior to the Supreme Court's decision, the Economic Development Act of 2005 ( H.R. 2471 and S. 1066 ) would authorize states to offer tax incentives similar to Ohio's investment tax credit.