By Allison Mudge

A case will go before the United States Supreme Court March 1 that will represent several years of work – most of it done by Northeastern Law School students and law professor Peter Enrich.

The case, Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler, involves the constitutionality of corporate tax breaks, and stems from an article written by Enrich in the Harvard Law Review in 1996.

“States have been in this race with one another to see who can give the most attractive incentives, usually in the form of tax breaks, to businesses,” Enrich said.

These incentives entice large businesses to build in a particular state. Cuno argues such tax breaks violate the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause.

About a year after his article was published, Enrich was contacted by consumer advocate and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader, and he agreed to take up the cause of a group in Toledo, Ohio, including Charlotte Cuno. The group was upset that the state planned to award nearly $300 million in tax incentives to DaimlerChrysler, which planned to put a Jeep plant in the city.

While DaimlerChrysler had the backing of the Ohio Attorney General’s Office and a powerful Toledo law firm, the plaintiffs’ lawyers “were basically a solo guy