October 24, 2026
Nebi Mema (Law ‘26) is a 4LE at Temple University Beasley School of Law. He recently won the Tax Notes annual student writing competition by submitting an article where he reviewed and criticized the Complete Auto test and examined inconsistencies with later decisions, demonstrating that the Complete Auto precedent should be overturned and replaced with a new test. The Temple Tax community is incredibly proud of Nebi and thrilled to have him continue its long tradition of excellence in tax law. Student Editor Kevin Sherry (LAW ’26) discussed the competition with Nebi. You can read Nebi’s full article here.
Kevin Sherry (KS): Can you start by telling us a little bit about yourself?
Nebi Mema (NM): That’s always a funny question in terms of where to start. Currently, I’m a CPA working in public accounting and serving as an M&A Manager specializing in state and local tax. Academically, I don’t have a specific specialty, though I’ve always been interested in pursuing a JD. I considered focusing more on tax law, but my coursework didn’t quite align with that path.
KS: As a fellow evening student, I was curious how you managed your time. Was writing the article a heavy lift, and were you able to work on it during the school year?
NM: I started the article in March, which was really the beginning phases with brainstorming and forming rough ideas. Things picked up in May and June, with the final due date being June 30th. Fortunately, that was three weeks before my son was born, so the timing worked out well. Balancing school, work, and writing was definitely a challenge. For the first month and a half, I was mostly jotting bullet points with broad ideas, not actual writing. Once finals were over, I treated the writing process like evening classes. I used the same time slot where I would have had class to work on the article. The real writing process began after the semester ended.
KS: Can you talk about how you decided to write the article?
NM: I came across the competition through a publication I regularly read for updates on tax law and regulations for my job. I saw the competition announcement in one of their newsletters and knew I wanted to participate. Part of the motivation was also realizing I needed a new writing sample. I wanted to write about something I was genuinely interested in, which was something that combined my interests in constitutional law and tax law. It ended up sharpening my writing skills more than I expected. For proofreading, I had about ten days to do it, and I kept thinking, ‘I just wrote this, why am I proofreading it?’ But I printed it out, marked it up, and repeated that process until it was done.
KS: Did you have a specific idea about the case and its framework from the beginning, or did that develop later?
NM: I started brainstorming ideas and remembered a similar case in Philadelphia where the city wasn’t granting tax credits to residents for both state and local jurisdictions. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in a way that aligned with my argument. That led me to explore the possibility of overruling precedent, specifically the Complete Auto case. The idea really solidified after conversations at a tax forum, where it seemed like stare decisis was being treated more like a guiding principle or north star than a binding precedent, which bothered me. I’m also very familiar with the Complete Auto case because it comes up regularly in my work.
KS: Your article discusses stare decisis extensively. Do you think the current Supreme Court is more likely to overrule this precedent?
NM: I think the current Roberts Court has shown a greater willingness to revisit and potentially overrule precedents from the 1970s. Since Complete Auto was decided in 1977, I believe they have the appetite to reconsider it. To me, it’s not a question of ‘if,’ but ‘when’ and it’s mostly just a matter of finding the right case.
KS: Do you have any thoughts on what an updated test might look like if Complete Auto were overruled?
NM: I do. In the article, I briefly suggested a unified test. Right now, the regulatory and tax frameworks are too distinct. I proposed merging them and focusing on core principles like discrimination against out-of-state businesses or excessive burdens. Essentially, I argued for a simplified, overarching anti-discrimination test, rather than relying on four separate, complex factors. The Pike test, which applies to non-tax regulation, could serve as a foundation for a unified approach.
Kevin Sherry (LAW ’26) is a Student Editor for the Temple 10-Q.