Full opinion text
ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge: Benjamin Franklin said, “[I]n this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” He was almost right. As this case illustrates, even taxes are not certain when it comes to matters affecting Indian tribes. In this appeal, we consider whether Florida’s Rental Tax and Florida’s Utility Tax, as applied to matters occurring on Seminole Tribe lands, violate the tenets of federal Indian law. For the reasons that follow, we find that the Utility Tax as it involves activities on Tribe land does not, but the Rental Tax does. I. Background A. Factual Background The Seminole Tribe of Florida (“the Tribe”) is a federally recognized Indian tribe with multiple reservations in Florida, including one near the city of Hollywood and one near the city of Tampa. The Tribe operates casinos on its Hollywood and Tampa reservations. In May 2005, the Tribe entered into 25-year leases with two non-Indian corporations — Ark Hollywood, LLC, and Ark Tampa, LLC (“the Ark Entities”) — to provide food-court operations at each casino. The leases required the Ark Entities to pay “to the applicable Federal, tribal and/or Florida governmental authority, any and all sales, excise, property and other taxes levied, imposed or assessed.” Through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”), the Secretary of the Interior approved the leases, as required by statute. The State of Florida taxes commercial rent payments (the “Rental Tax”). See Fla. Stat. § 212.031. Florida describes the Rental Tax as a tax on the “privilege [of engaging] in the business of renting, leasing, letting, or granting a license for the use of any real property” in the state. Id. § 212.031(l)(a). The tax is assessed against the lessee based on the total amount of rent paid. Id. § 212.031(l)(c), (2)(a). Under the law, the landlord collects and remits the tax to the state and is liable to pay the tax and incur penalties if it fails to perform these duties. Id. § 212.031(3); see id. § 212.07(2), (3). The tax itself constitutes a lien on the personal property of the lessee, and not, apparently, the land or property of the lessor. Id. § 212.031(4). Florida also imposes a tax “on gross receipts from utility services that are delivered to a retail consumer” in Florida (“the Utility Tax”). See Fla. Stat. § 203.01(l)(a)(l) (2012). The statute permits a utility provider, at its discretion, to separately state this Utility Tax as a line item on the customer’s bill but does not require it to do so. See id. § 203.01(4). If the provider does separately state the tax on the bill, the statute requires the consumer to remit the tax to the service provider and states that the tax becomes part of the debt owed to (and recoverable by) the service provider. Id. The statute clarifies, though, that the “tax is imposed upon every person for the privilege of conducting a utility or communications services business, and each provider of the taxable services remains fully and completely liable for the tax, even if the tax is separately stated as a line item or component of the total bill.” Id. § 203.01(5). Similarly, Florida’s administrative regulations specify that even when stated on the consumer’s bill, the “tax is imposed on the privilege of doing business, and it is an item of cost to the distribution company,” who “remains fully and completely liable for the payment of the tax, even when the tax is wholly or partially separately itemized on the customer’s bill.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 12B-6.0015(3)(a). A service provider may, however, claim a credit or refund for net uncollected billings when it prepays the tax to the state based on gross billings, as opposed to actual gross receipts. Fla. Admin. Code R. 12B-6.005(l)(e). A service provider who fails to remit the tax to the state is also guilty of a misdemeanor. Fla. Stat. § 203.01(6). Florida assessed the Rental Tax against the Ark Entities for the period of July 2005 through June 2008. The Tribe has paid the Utility Tax stated as a component of its utility bill. Although the Tribe applied to the Florida Department of Revenue for a refund of the amount of the Utility Tax it paid beginning in 2008 through July 2011, it was denied a refund. The Ark Entities also applied for a refund of the Rental Tax, which was denied. B. Procedural History Following these denials, on October 30, 2012, the Tribe filed a federal complaint against the State of Florida and Marshall Stranburg, the interim Executive Director of the Florida Department of Revenue, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Within the next few days, the Ark Entities filed suits in the Florida state courts contesting the denials of their refunds. Both state cases were still pending at the time this appeal was filed, although the case related to the Hollywood casino was apparently stayed pending the disposition of the federal case. Stranburg sought dismissal of the Tribe’s federal complaint on multiple grounds, including “the abstention doctrine and the principles of exhaustion and comity.” The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida rejected the abstention argument, noting that “this case involves a different plaintiff, seeking prospective injunctive relief and declaratory relief unrelated to Ark Hollywood’s and Ark Tampa’s requested refund. This Court will not shirk its obligation to adjudicate this matter, when it so clearly has jurisdiction over the issues presented.” Stranburg did not raise the comity or abstention issue again in the district court. After conducting limited discovery, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Tribe on all of its claims. With respect to the Rental Tax, the court concluded that 25 U.S.C. § 465 expressly prohibits the Rental Tax because the Rental Tax is a tax on Indian land rights. See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 49 F.Supp.3d 1095, 1097-98 (S.D.Fla.2014). The district court also held in the alternative that if the statute did not expressly prohibit the Rental Tax, the tax was nonetheless preempted by federal law and impermissibly interfered with tribal sovereignty. Id. at 1098-102. In reaching this holding, the district court gave deference, short of full Chevron deference, to BIA regulations that prohibit taxes on leases of Indian land. See id. at 1099-100. As for the Utility Tax, the district court similarly found it to be impermissible. In particular, the court reasoned that the legal incidence of the Utility Tax fell on' the Tribe, not on the utility company, and federal law generally prohibits taxing Indians for on-reservation activities. See id. at 1103-08. Stranburg now appeals the district court’s rulings. With respect to the Rental Tax, Stranburg contends that the district court erred both in finding a statutory prohibition of the tax and federal preemption of the tax. Stranburg also revives his comity argument, asserting that the district court should never have adjudicated the Rental Tax claim while the Ark Entities’ state-court cases were pending. Stranburg further contends that the district court erred in determining the legal incidence of the Utility Tax to be on the Tribe rather than on the utility company. Because, in Stranburg’s view, the tax falls on the utility company, he argues that the district court should have conducted a preemption inquiry. With the benefit of the parties’ briefs and oral argument, we now affirm in part and reverse in part. II. Standards of Review We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, considering all the evidence and viewing facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Morales v. Zenith Ins. Co., 714 F.3d 1220, 1226 (11th Cir.2013). Summary judgment is appropriate only when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. A court should grant summary judgment against a party “who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). We review a district court’s ruling on abstention for an abuse of discretion. Ambrosia Coal & Constr. Co. v. Pagés Morales, 368 F.3d 1320, 1332 (11th Cir.2004). A district court abuses its discretion if it misapplies the law or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous. Id. (citations omitted). III. Florida’s Rental Tax Stranburg contends on appeal that the district court erred in finding the Ark Entities statutorily exempt from Florida’s Rental Tax, in its alternative holding that federal law preempts the Rental Tax, and in its failure to dismiss the Tribe’s challenge on comity grounds. After carefully considering this issue of first impression in our Circuit, we conclude that the district court correctly interpreted 25 U.S.C. § 465 to preclude Florida from collecting its Rental Tax on the rent payments made by non-Indian lessees of protected Indian reservation land. Although Stranburg’s arguments are not without some appeal, we nonetheless find that the Tribe’s interpretation best comports with the statutory text and purpose, the relevant Supreme Court case law, and the general canon that statutes be construed in Indians’ favor. Accordingly, we affirm the district court on this basis. We further hold that, even if the statutory exemption did not apply, federal law preempts the Rental Tax in this case under the balancing inquiry outlined in White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 100 S.Ct. 2578, 65 L.Ed.2d 665 (1980). While we respectfully disagree with the district court’s application of the Bracker inquiry because it relied on a conclusion of preemption promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior instead of conducting its own particularized inquiry, we nonetheless affirm the ultimate preemption holding based on a de novo Bracker analysis of the record before us. A. Statutory Exemption The district court concluded that 25 U.S.C. § 465 barred Florida from assessing its Rental Tax against the non-Indian lessees of the Tribe’s reservation land. The district court, as does the Tribe on appeal, relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145, 93 S.Ct. 1267, 36 L.Ed.2d 114 (1973), for the proposition that § 465 prohibits taxes on land rights that are so connected to the land that the tax amounts to a tax on the land itself. We agree with the district court’s analysis. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 was passed by Congress with the intent of “rehabilitating] the Indian’s economic life and [giving] him a chance to develop the initiative destroyed by a century of oppression and paternalism,” through, among other things, giving tribes greater control over their affairs and property. See Mescalero, 411 U.S. at 152, 93 S.Ct. at 1272 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Section 5 of the Act, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 465, has been described as the “capstone” of the Indian Reorganization Act’s land provisions, provisions that were designed to improve Indians’ economic standing through the use of land acquired by the Secretary of the Interior “with at least one eye directed toward how tribes will use those lands to support economic development.” See, e.g., Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 2199, 2211, 183 L.Ed.2d 211 (2012). Accordingly, Section 5 of the Act authorizes the Secretary “to acquire ... any interest in lands, water rights, or surface rights to lands ... for the purpose of providing land for Indians.” 25 U.S.C. § 465. The statute provides that title to the land or rights acquired will be taken by the United States in trust for the Indian tribe and that “such lands or rights shall be exempt from State and local taxation.” Id. The Supreme Court has held that, “[o]n its face, the statute exempts land and rights in land” from state taxation. Mescalero, 411 U.S. at 155, 93 S.Ct. at 1274. In Mescalero, the Indian plaintiffs operated a ski resort on off-reservation land in New Mexico that was developed under the 1934 Act. Id. at 146, 93 S.Ct. at 1269. New Mexico sought to levy two taxes related to the ski resort: a gross-receipts tax from the sale of services and tangible property at the resort and a use tax based on the purchase price of materials used to construct two ski lifts at the resort. Id. at 147, 93 S.Ct. at 1269-70. The Supreme Court first rejected a blanket characterization of the resort as a “federal instrumentality” that would be exempt from all state taxation, id. at 150-55, 93 S.Ct. at 1271-74, and then considered the language from § 465. In analyzing § 465’s application to the gross-receipts tax, the Court observed that while the statute precluded taxes on land or on rights in land, it did not exempt from state taxation the income derived from the use of the land. Id. at 155, 93 S.Ct. at 1274. The Court first noted that tax exemptions are not granted by implication and then recalled that not all state and federal taxes on Indians are categorically barred. Id. at 156-57, 93 S.Ct. at 1274-75. For example, the Court cited its prior decisions in Choteau v. Burnet, 283 U.S. 691, 51 S.Ct. 598, 75 L.Ed. 1353 (1931), and Leahy v. State Treasurer, 297 U.S. 420, 56 S.Ct. 507, 80 L.Ed. 771 (1936), in which the Court upheld, respectively, federal and state income taxes on income derived from oil, gas, and mineral exploration on Indian lands after that income was distributed from a federal trust fund to individual Indians. In those cases, the Supreme Court decided, in part, that income distributed to individual Indian tribe members and freely useable by them was taxable even when the source of that income was exempt from taxation. See Choteau, 283 U.S. at 696-97, 51 S.Ct. at 600-01; Leahy, 297 U.S. at 421, 56 S.Ct. at 507. Ultimately, the Mescalero Court likened the gross-receipts tax to these taxes on income, as opposed to a tax on property, and found that it was not barred by § 465. 411 U.S. at 157, 93 S.Ct. at 1275. In contrast, the Court did hold that § 465 prohibited the.state’s use tax on the ski-lift materials. The Court observed that under the statute, “these permanent improvements on the Tribe’s tax-exempt land would certainly be immune from the State’s ad valorem property tax.” Id. at 158, 93 S.Ct. at 1275. As the Court explained, use “is among the ‘bundle of privileges that make up property or ownership’ of property and, in this sense, at least, a tax upon ‘use’ is a tax upon the property itself.” Id. (citation omitted). While conceding that not all use taxes could be viewed as property taxes, the Court concluded that “use of permanent improvements upon the land is so intimately connected with use of the land itself that an explicit provision relieving the latter of state tax burdens must be construed to encompass an exemption for the former.” Id. at 158, 93 S.Ct. at 1275-76. In our view, Mescalero stands for the proposition that § 465 precludes state taxation of that “bundle of privileges that make up property or ownership of property.” See id. at 158, 93 S.Ct. at 1275 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The ability to lease property is a fundamental privilege of property ownership. See, e.g., Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197, 215, 44 S.Ct. 15, 17-18, 68 L.Ed. 255 (1923) (noting that “essential attributes of property” include “the right to use, lease, and dispose of it for lawful purposes”). By taxing the “privilege” of “engaging] in the business of renting, leasing, letting, or granting a license for the use of any real property,” the State of Florida is taxing a privilege' of ownership just as New Mexico’s tax in Mescalero taxed the privilege of use. Stranburg attempts to overcome this analysis in several ways. First, he tries to distinguish the Rental Tax from the tax in Mescalero and limit the holding of that case. Next, he asserts that the Supreme Court has foreclosed the district court’s reading of Mescalero with its decision in Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U.S. 163, 109 S.Ct. 1698, 104 L.Ed.2d 209 (1989). And finally, he relies on case-law from the Ninth Circuit purportedly upholding a similar tax in California. We find none of Stranburg’s arguments ultimately persuasive. 1. The Rental Tax Is Not Materially Distinguishable from the Use Tax in Mescalero that the Supreme Court Determined Violated § 465 Stranburg’s efforts to distinguish the Rental Tax from the tax at issue in Mescalero gain no traction. Specifically, Stranburg characterizes the Rental Tax as a “transactional tax on the payment of rent” and likens it more to the gross-receipts tax in Mescalero as a tax on income rather than on the land. And, of course, the Tribe receives income from the rent payments. But these payments secure a lessee’s possessory interest in the land for the duration of the lease. See generally Winters Coal Co. v. Comm’r, 496 F.2d 995, 998 (5th Cir.1974) (plurality op.) (“There is little conflict or disagreement with the old hornbook principle that a lease is a conveyance and creates in the lessee an estate which entitles him to exclusive possession unless certain rights are reserved by the lessor.”); Lease, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (“A contract by which a rightful possessor of real property conveys the right to use and occupy the property in exchange for consideration, usu[ally] rent”). Just as the use of permanent improvements on land “is so intimately connected with use of the land itself,” Mescalero, 411 U.S. at 158, 93 S.Ct. at 1275, payment under a lease is intimately and indistinguishably connected to the leasing of the land itself. And in this respect, the Rental Tax is distinguishable from the gross-receipts sales tax in Mescalero or the severance and excise taxes discussed in cases like Cotton Petroleum, 490 U.S. at 168-69 & n. 4, 109 S.Ct. at 1703, or Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Texas Co., 336 U.S. 342, 345-47, 69 S.Ct. 561, 563-64, 93 L.Ed. 721 (1949). Florida’s Rental Tax is a tax on a right in land, while the others tax economic activity (sales receipts) or tangible property (oil or gas) removed by one or more degrees from the land. Additionally, to the extent any ambiguity exists with respect to the tax exemption contained in § 465, resolving that ambiguity in favor of the Tribe comports with the long-standing canon that statutes be construed liberally in favor of Indians. See Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 759, 766, 105 S.Ct. 2399, 2403, 85 L.Ed.2d 753 (1985) (citations omitted) (“[Sjtatutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit.”). We acknowledge that the Supreme Court has cautioned that this canon “is offset by the canon that warns us against interpreting federal statutes as providing tax exemptions unless those exemptions are clearly expressed.” Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 534 U.S. 84, 95, 122 S.Ct. 528, 535-36, 151 L.Ed.2d 474 (2001). But no “offset” is warranted here. Unlike a tax exemption purportedly legislated “through an inexplicit numerical cross-reference,” id. at 90, 122 S.Ct. at 533, § 465 expressly exempts land and rights in that land from state taxation. Any “ambiguity” present centers not around the existence of a tax exemption, but rather the scope of the land rights included within that exemption. In sum, we find that construing § 465 to preclude Florida’s Rental Tax aligns with the text and purpose of the Indian Reorganization Act, the Supreme Court’s Ínterpretation of § 465 in Mescalero, and the general canon that statutes be construed in Indians’ favor. 2. Cotton Petroleum Does Not Foreclose the Statutory Exemption Stranburg argues further, though, that even if Mescalero can be read to preclude the Rental Tax, that reading was subsequently abrogated by the Supreme Court in Cotton Petroleum. We disagree. In Cotton Petroleum, the Supreme Court confronted the question of whether New Mexico could impose taxes on oil and gas produced by non-Indian lessees of wells located on the tribe’s reservation. 490 U.S. at 166, 109 S.Ct. at 1702. In answering that question, the Court looked to the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 (“1938 Act”), 25 U.S.C. § 396a, and its predecessors, which permitted the tribe to lease reservation land for mineral exploitation, subject to approval by the Secretary of the Interior. Id. at 167, 109 S.Ct. at 1702. The Court recounted its shifting doctrines concerning state taxation of non-Indian lessees’ oil production, noting that its old rule required the tax to be specifically authorized by Congress, while the new rule upheld the state’s tax unless it was “expressly or impliedly prohibited by Congress.” Id. at 173, 109 S.Ct. at 1706. The “current doctrine” permits a state, absent a grant of tax immunity by Congress, to “impose a nondiscriminatory tax on private parties with whom the United States or an Indian tribe does business, even though the financial burden of the tax may fall on the United States or tribe.” Id. at 175, 109 S.Ct. at 1707. Although the Court found no express discussion of taxation in the 1938 Act, it concluded that the silence of Congress on the issue was explained by the shifting doctrines. As the Court noted, predecessors to the 1938 Act dealing with leasing of Indian lands for mineral exploitation expressly permitted state taxation. See id. at 181-83, 109 S.Ct. at 1710-11; see also 25 U.S.C. § 398; 25 U.S.C. § 398c. These express authorizations in 1924 and 1927 were in line with the earlier doctrine. But by 1938 the new doctrine was in place, and the Court refused to read the silence of the 1938 Act as either a repeal of the previously authorized state taxes or an implied prohibition on state taxation. Id. at 182,109 S.Ct. at 1710. Although the Cotton Petroleum Court was analyzing the 1938 Act, in a footnote, it commented that the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, among other Indian-related statutes, “no more expresses] a congressional intent to pre-empt state taxation of oil and gas lessees than does the 1938 Act.” Id. at 183 n. 14, 109 S.Ct. at 1711 n. 14 (emphasis added). Based on this footnote, Stranburg asserts that the Supreme Court “concluded squarely” that § 465 does not express a congressional intent to preempt state taxation on all lessees of Indian land. But Stranburg’s argument overlooks the fact that the Supreme Court’s comment applies to just oil and gas lessees specifically, which are fundamentally different from general land leases, in that they allow extraction of products from the land. The Court, in this footnote, simply did not address the full scope of § 465’s tax exemption. Extending the Cotton Petroleum footnote to encompass all lessees of Indian land would ignore both the express text and the larger context of the Court’s opinion. 3. The Ninth Circuit’s Construction of the Statute Stranburg also relies heavily on the Ninth Circuit cases of Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians v. Riverside County, 442 F.2d 1184 (9th Cir.1971), Fort Mojave Tribe v. San Bernardino County, 543 F.2d 1253 (9th Cir.1976), and Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation v. Thurston County Board of Equalization, 724 F.3d 1153, 1158 n. 7 (9th Cir.2013), for the proposition that § 465 does not preclude the Rental Tax. In Agua Caliente, the Ninth Circuit upheld (over a persuasive dissent that foreshadowed the Bracker inquiry) California’s possessory-interest tax, which it characterized as a tax on the “full cash value of the lessee’s interest” in the land rather than a tax on the “land as such.” See 442 F.2d at 1186. In Fort Mojave, the Ninth Circuit held that another section of the Indian Reorganization Act did not preempt the possessory-interest tax because the tax did not threaten to encumber the Indian’s interest. 543 F.2d at 1256. Significantly, neither the Agua Caliente nor Fort Mojave decisions mentioned or apparently considered § 465 at all. In Chehalis Reservation, the Ninth Circuit recently invalidated a' Washington state tax on permanent improvements owned by a non-Indian corporation on Indian land acquired under § 465. 724 F.3d at 1157-58. In a footnote in that opinion, the Ninth Circuit panel commented that the taxes upheld in Agua Caliente and Fort Mojave were distinguishable from the Washington tax and the New Mexico tax in Mescalero because, in the former cases, the state imposed taxes on non-Indian lessees’ possessory interests while, in the latter, the states imposed property taxes on the land, which included permanent improvements to the land. Id. at 1158 n. 7. Stranburg argues that after Chehalis Reservation, the Ninth Circuit has determined that § 465 “bars state taxes directly on land or on permanent improvements to land, and only those two areas,” and urges us to adopt that reading here. But Stranburg’s construction is too narrow. First, the Chehalis Reservation footnote did not limit § 465’s application to only land and permanent improvements on land. Indeed, it recognized that § 465 precluded taxes on land and on land rights; it just implicitly decided, without elaboration, that possessory interests were not rights in the land. See id. Moreover, in Mescalero, the Supreme Court itself did not expressly limit its holding to only permanent improvements. The opinion points out that not all “use taxes for all purposes” can be deemed to be property taxes. See Mescalero, 411 U.S. at 158-59, 93 S.Ct. at 1275-76. The necessary implication is that some use taxes, of which permanent improvements are but one, may be deemed so akin to property taxes that § 465 would bar their imposition. Further, while the language of the Chehalis Reservation footnote suggests that the Ninth Circuit determined in Agua Caliente that § 465 did not bar taxes on non-Indian possessory interests of Indian land, the fact remains that neither Agua Caliente nor Fort Mojave ever analyzed the applicability of § 465 to the possessory interests being taxed. Thus, even to the extent that a tax on the full-cash value of a lessee’s possessory interest can be viewed as analogous to a tax on the payment of rent, we do not find the Ninth Circuit’s bare statement in the Chehalis Reservation footnote that § 465 does not apply to taxes on such interests to be persuasive. Diving more deeply into the Ninth Circuit cases similarly does not help Stranburg. Significantly, Agua Caliente was decided before Mescalero. In the absence of Mescalero, the Ninth Circuit likened California’s tax to the tax found permissible in United States v. City of Detroit, 355 U.S. 466, 78 S.Ct. 474, 2 L.Ed.2d 424 (1958), in which the Supreme Court upheld a state tax on the privilege of commercially renting property, even though the property in question was owned by the United States. At the time that the cases were decided, the Supreme Court in City of Detroit and the Ninth Circuit in Agua Caliente both viewed a “tax imposed upon the use of property [as] something distinct from a tax imposed upon the property itself.” City of Detroit, 355 U.S. at 470, 78 S.Ct. at 476; Agua Caliente, 442 F.2d at 1186-87. But two problems exist with relying on these cases here. First, the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Mescalero expressly recognized that some uses are so intimately connected with the land that a tax on those uses is essentially a tax on the land, obliterating any categorical distinction between use taxes and property taxes. See Mescalero, 411 U.S. at 158, 93 S.Ct. at 1275-76. Second, City of Detroit is distinguishable in that the source of any tax exemption for the United States was the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, a doctrine that has been “ ‘thoroughly repudiated’ by modern case law.” See Cotton Petroleum, 490 U.S. at 174, 109 S.Ct. at 1706. Here, the source of the tax exemption is a federal statute. Section 465 contains an explicit congressional expression of a tax exemption, the contours of which must be interpreted like any other statute. So we are not persuaded by Stranburg’s reliance on the Ninth Circuit’s cases involving California’s possessory-interest tax. Instead, we hold that § 465 bars Florida from assessing its Rental Tax against the Ark Entities. This construction of the statute more closely comports with what the statutory text actually protects, with what the Supreme Court decided in Mescalero, with the purposes of § 465 more generally, and with the general statutory canon that statutes be construed in favor of Indians. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order invalidating the application of Florida’s Rental Tax to the properties at issue in this case. B. Federal Law Preempts the Rental Tax We could, of course, stop our analysis regarding the Rental Tax at this point, since we have concluded that application of the Rental Tax in this case violates § 465. But this case raises a matter of first impression, so we also consider the alternative basis that the district court relied on in invalidating the Rental Tax. Even if § 465 did not expressly preclude assessment of the Rental Tax against the Ark Entities, the Rental Tax is nonetheless preempted by federal law. The district court concluded that the state Rental Tax was preempted because the district court accorded “the full amount of deference available under the law” to a balancing test conducted by the Secretary of the Interior in promulgating regulations governing the leasing of Indian land-including a regulation that prohibits rental taxes. Seminole Tribe, 49 F.Supp.3d at 1099-1100. On appeal, Stranburg contests this ruling on a number of fronts. He contends that the Secretary’s analysis is entitled to no deference by any court because, in Stranburg’s view, it does not purport to decide the preemption question, it was the product of flawed rulemaking, and it is substantively incorrect. Stranburg also suggests that even if the regulations and analysis must be given weight, that weight should be minimal because the terms of the Ark Entities’ leases are controlling. And finally, Stranburg argues that he prevails on a de novo Bracket balancing analysis because the Tribe has not put forth any evidence of its interests while the state has demonstrated its interest in the Rental Tax based on the services it provides on the Tribe’s reservations. Although we decline to accord the regulations deference in conducting a Bracket inquiry, we nonetheless find that under a de novo Bracket analysis, the Rental Tax is preempted by federal law. In Bracket, the Supreme Court addressed a challenge to Arizona’s motor-carrier license and use fuel taxes as applied to non-Indian timber enterprises harvesting timber on reservation land. 448 U.S. at 137-38, 100 S.Ct. at 2580-81. The Court outlined several general Indian law taxation principles, including “two independent but related barriers to the assertion of state regulatory authority over tribal reservations and members. First, the exercise of such authority may be preempted by federal law.... Second, it may unlawfully infringe ‘on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them.’ ” Id. at 142, 100 S.Ct. at 2583 (citations omitted). The Court also “rejected the proposition that in order to find a particular state law to have been preempted by operation- of federal law, an express congressional statement to that effect is required.” Id. at 144, 100 S.Ct. at 2584. Of note, the Court commented that it is “generally unhelpful” to apply existing law regarding federal-state preemption to Indian law preemption. Id. at 143, 100 S.Ct. at 2583. As the Court explained, state law is generally inapplicable to on-reservation conduct by Indians, given the overwhelming federal interest in encouraging tribal self-government. Id. at 144, 100 S.Ct. at 2584. To analyze the more difficult question of whether state regulation of non-Indian activity on the reservation is preempted by federal law, Bracket called for “a-particularized inquiry into the nature of the state, federal, and tribal interests at stake, an inquiry designed to determine whether, in the specific context, the exercise of state authority would violate federal law.” Id. at 144-45, 100 S.Ct. at 2584. In turning to Arizona’s tax scheme, the Court first considered the federal interests at stake, observing that the “Federal Government’s regulation of the harvesting of Indian timber is comprehensive” and citing congressional statutes, Department of the Interior regulations, and day-to-day supervision by the BIA. Id. at 145-48, 100 S.Ct. at 2584-86. Indeed, the Court stated, the “federal regulatory scheme is so pervasive as to preclude the additional burdens sought to be imposed” by the state taxes. Id. at 148, 100 S.Ct. at 2586. Moreover, the Court reasoned that the state taxes would undermine federal policies of guaranteeing the benefit of timber harvests to Indians, as well as general policies designed to revitalize Indian economies and self-government. Id. at 149, 100 S.Ct. at 2586. For instance, the Court determined that the taxes would complicate the Secretary’s setting of fees, reduce tribal revenues, and diminish.the profit that potential contractors could realize. Id. at 149, 100 S.Ct. at 2587. With regard to the state’s interest, the Court found none beyond a “general desire to raise revenue.” Id. at 150, 100 S.Ct. at 2587. Nor, as the Court observed, was this “a case in which the State seeks to assess taxes in return for governmental functions it performs for those on whom the taxes fall.” Id. at 150, 100 S.Ct. at 2587. Even though the fuel tax was designed to compensate the state for the use of its highways, the on-reservation roads at issue were neither built nor maintained by the state. Id. As a result, the Court concluded that the state’s generalized interest was insufficient to overcome the comprehensive and pervasive regulation of the harvesting of Indian timber and the threats to federal policies posed by the taxes. See id. at 151, 100 S.Ct. at 2588. Two years later, the Court decided Ramah Navajo School Board v. Bureau of Revenue, 458 U.S. 832, 102 S.Ct. 3394, 73 L.Ed.2d 1174 (1982). In Ramah, the Court struck down New Mexico’s gross-receipts tax as assessed on a non-Indian contractor who built a school on the reservation. Id. at 834, 102 S.Ct. at 3396. The Court found the tax preempted, in part, because the state did “not seek to assess its tax in return for the governmental functions it provides to those who must bear the burden of paying this tax.” Id. at 843, 102 S.Ct. at 3401. While the New Mexico tax was “intended to compensate the State for granting ‘the privilege of engaging in business,’ ” the state had “not explained the source of its power to levy such a tax ... where the ‘privilege of doing business’ on an Indian reservation is exclusively bestowed by the Federal Government.” Id. at 844, 102 S.Ct. at 3402. The Supreme Court once again applied the Bracket balancing test in Cotton Petroleum, this time upholding the state tax. In so doing, the Court emphasized that the test is a “flexible one sensitive to the particular state, federal, and tribal interests involved.” Cotton Petroleum, 490 U.S. at 184, 109 S.Ct. at 1711. In contrasting Cotton Petroleum’s situation with those found in Bracket and Ramah, the Court observed that those two cases “involved complete abdication or noninvolvement of the State in the on-reservation activity,” while in Cotton Petroleum, New Mexico provided “substantial services” to Cotton Petroleum and the tribe. Id. at 185, 109 S.Ct. at 1712. The Court further distinguished Cotton Petroleum’s situation by finding that no economic burden fell on the tribe due to the state taxes and that the state did regulate “the spacing and mechanical integrity of [oil] wells located on the reservation,” meaning the federal regulations of mineral extraction, while extensive, were not exclusive. Id. at 185-86, 109 S.Ct. at 1712. As a result, the Court concluded that the state taxes were not preempted, in part, because “[t]his [was] not a case in which the State has had nothing to do with the on-reservation activity, save tax it.” Id. at 186, 109 S.Ct. at 1713. The Court also noted that any marginal effect on the demand for leases that could be attributed to increased state taxes was “simply too indirect and too insubstantial to support Cotton’s claim of pre-emption ... absent some special factor as those present [in Bracker and Ramah ].” Id. at 186-87, 109 S.Ct. at 1713. To summarize, then, Bracker requires a particularized inquiry into the federal, tribal, and state interests implicated by a state’s tax on non-Indians for on-reservation activity. Bracker, 448 U.S. at 144-45, 100 S.Ct. at 2584. Federal statutes, agency regulations, and day-to-day agency supervision can all inform the federal and tribal interests and can also signal a federal regulatory scheme that is so pervasive that it preempts the state tax. Id. at 145-48, 100 S.Ct. at 2584-86. A state’s interests in a particular tax can outweigh federal and tribal interests, but to do so, the state’s tax must relate to services it provides in connection with the entity and activity being taxed and not merely serve a generalized interest in raising revenue. Id. at 150-51,100 S.Ct. at 2587-88. 1. Should the Secretary’s Analysis Be Accorded Deference? Before turning to the merits of the Bracker analysis, we must first address what measure of deference, if any, courts should accord to the Secretary of the Interior’s Bracker-like balancing conducted in the regulatory context. The issue arises because the Secretary of the Interior adopted substantial regulations, made effective in January 2013, concerning the Secretary’s approval and supervision of Indian land leases. See 25 C.F.R. Part 162. Included among those regulations is a section entitled “What taxes apply to leases approved under this part?” 25 C.F.R. § 162.017. That section expressly provides that “activities under a lease conducted on the leased premises” are not subject to state taxation, id. § 162.017(b), and that “the leasehold or possessory interest” is not subject' to state taxation, id. § 162.017(c). According to the regulations’ preamble published in the Federal Register, this section was added as “clarification regarding other taxation arising in the context of leasing Indian land.” Residential, Business, and Wind and Solar Resource Leases on Indian Land, 77 Fed.Reg. 72,440, 72,447 (Dec. 5, 2012) (codified at 25 C.F.R. pt. 162) (“Preamble”). In this Preamble, the Secretary outlined the Bracker balancing test and then applied it generally. First, the Secretary listed the extensive federal regulations that it said “occupy and preempt the field of Indian leasing.” Id. at 72,447. The Secretary also analyzed the federal and tribal policies at stake in land leasing and noted that the “ability of a tribe ... to convey an interest in trust or restricted land arises under Federal law, not State law [and] Federal legislation has left the State with no duties or responsibilities for such interest.” Id. at 72,447-48. Finally, the Secretary asserted generally that state taxation undermines federal interests with respect to leases. Id. at 72,-447-49. The district court concluded that the regulations, including the Secretary’s Bracker analysis in the Preamble, were entitled to the “full amount of deference available under the law,” which it defined as “some deference” short of full Chevron deference. Seminole Tribe, 49 F.Supp.3d at 1099-1100. Relying on Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 129 S.Ct. 1187, 173 L.Ed.2d 51 (2009), the district court reasoned that deference was appropriate based on the specialized experience of the Secretary in Indian affairs, the complex and extensive history of federal Indian law, and the thoroughness and persuasiveness of the Secretary’s analysis. 49 F.Supp.3d at 1099-1100. Ultimately, the district court held, based on “the reasons detailed by the Secretary of the Interior,” that federal regulation of Indian land leasing was so pervasive as to preclude the additional burdens of Florida’s Rental Tax and that, “in these circumstances, 25 U.S.C. § 415 and 25 C.F.R. § 162.017 prohibit the imposition of the Rental Tax to the Ark leases.” Id. at 1100. We agree with the district court’s ultimate conclusion. But to the extent that the district court gave deference to the Secretary’s ultimate application of Bracker and the agency’s conclusion that federal law preempts lease-related taxation, we find that the district court went a step too far. Bracket and its progeny call for a particularized balancing of the specific federal, tribal, and state interests involved. See Bracker, 448 U.S. at 145, 100 S.Ct. at 2584 (“This inquiry ... has called for a particularized inquiry into the nature of the state, federal, and tribal interests at stake, an inquiry designed to determine whether, in the specific context, the exercise of state authority would violate federal law.” (emphasis added)); Ramah, 458 U.S. at 838, 102 S.Ct. at 3398 (“Pre-emption analysis ... requires a particularized examination of the relevant state, federal, and tribal interests.” (emphasis added)); Cotton Petroleum, 490 U.S. at 176, 109 S.Ct. at 1707 (“Instead, we have applied a flexible pre-emption analysis sensitive to the particular facts and legislation involved.” (emphasis added)). Because the Secretary’s analysis did not examine Florida’s interests in imposing this particular Rental Tax, the balancing in the Preamble cannot substitute for the particularized inquiry required by Bracker. As for Wyeth, although it dealt with preemption outside the context of federal Indian law, that decision observed that while some weight can be given to an agency’s views on a state law’s impact on a federal regulatory scheme, deference to an agency’s ultimate conclusion of federal preemption is inappropriate. See Wyeth, 555 U.S. at 576-77, 129 S.Ct. at 1201. 2. The Federal and Tribal Interests at Stake This is not to say that the Secretary’s analysis is not without value in delineating the federal and tribal interests implicated in the leasing of Indian land. As Wyeth noted, an agency’s analysis of the regulatory scheme it administers deserves some weight, particularly when the subject matter and history are complex and extensive, and the analysis is thorough, consistent, and persuasive. 555 U.S. at 576-77, 129 S.Ct. at 1201. Here, those factors apply with force. Accordingly, the Preamble analysis and the actual statutes and regulations themselves provide, in this case, substantial evidence of the extensive federal regulation of Indian land leasing to inform the Bracker balancing inquiry. Stranburg raises a number of specific arguments about why deference is inappropriate, but none of those arguments succeed in showing why the Secretary’s analysis cannot serve as evidence of the federal and tribal interests involved. Because we have determined that deference to the Secretary’s preemption conclusion is inappropriate and will conduct an independent Bracker inquiry, we need not address Stranburg’s deference arguments in further depth. Although we cannot defer to the Secretary’s ultimate conclusion that federal law preempts the Rental Tax, we nonetheless agree that is the correct conclusion. As in the cases of Bracker and Ramah, the extensive and exclusive federal regulation of Indian leasing — as evidenced by federal law and regulations — precludes the imposition of state taxes on that activity. See Bracker, 448 U.S. at 148-49, 100 S.Ct. at 2586; Ramah, 458 U.S. at 841-42, 102 S.Ct. at 3400-01; see also, e.g., 25 U.S.C. § 415; 25 C.F.R. Part 162; Preamble at 72,447-48. Florida has not shown that the Rental Tax is designed to compensate for any state services or regulations related to the act of renting of commercial property on Indian land; rather, the interests the state advances are more akin to raising revenue for providing statewide services generally. Accordingly, the Bracker analysis leads us to conclude that Florida’s Rental Tax is preempted by federal law. Nor are we persuaded by Stranburg’s various arguments that the inquiry should tip in his favor. Initially, he attacks the pervasive character of the federal regulatory scheme, asserting that Cotton Petroleum established that regulation of all lessees of Indian land is not exclusively federal. See Cotton Petroleum, 490 U.S. at 185-86, 109 S.Ct. at 1712-13 (holding that the state’s regulation of oil-well spacing and integrity meant that federal regulation, while extensive, was not exclusive). In support of this point,-Stranburg contends that the oil and gas leases in Cotton Petroleum were subject to the same federal regulations that govern the Ark Entities’ leases, and since federal regulation was not deemed exclusive in Cotton Petroleum, it cannot be deemed exclusive here. This argument fails, though, for a number of reasons. First," Bracker requires a particularized balancing of specific interests. In Cotton Petroleum, the Supreme Court pointed to state regulation of oil wells independent of the federal regulations. Stranburg, however, has not pointed to any Florida regulation of the commercial leasing of Indian land or regulation of the activities occurring under the lease. Second, the federal regulations concerning Indian oil leases are separate and distinct from the Indian surface land-leasing regulations. See 25 C.F.R. § 162.006(b) (noting that this part of the regulations does not apply to “mineral leases, prospecting permits, or mineral development agreements,” which are covered by six-separate parts of the Code of Federal Regulations). The regulations cited in Cotton Petroleum came from Part 211 of the Code, one of the mineral-leasing parts. See 490 U.S. at 186 n. 16, 109 S.Ct. at 1712 n. 16. Significantly, they were not found in Part 162, the surface-leasing regulations. Similarly, Stranburg’s reliance here on the case of Gila River Indian Community v. Waddell, 91 F.3d 1232 (9th Cir.1996), cannot help him. Contrary to Stranburg’s suggestion, Waddell did not make a broad pronouncement that the federal leasing regulations were insufficient to preempt all state taxes. Instead, the court found the leasing interests insufficient to preempt a state sales tax on non-Indians’ attendance at entertainment events on the reservation. See 91 F.3d at 1237 (“The Arizona sales tax would not interfere with the use and development of the Tribe’s property. Thus, the regulatory scheme that governs the leasing of Indian lands does not require the preemption of the tax.”). Stranburg next remarks that the federal interest in promoting Indian economic development does not automatically preempt all state taxes when any reduction of Indian income is threatened. This proposition certainly is true. See Cotton Petroleum, 490 U.S. at 180, 109 S.Ct. at 1709 (“We thus agree that a purpose of the 1938 Act is to provide Indian tribes with badly needed revenue, but find no evidence for the further supposition that Congress intended to remove all barriers to profit maximization.”); id. at 187, 109 S.Ct. at 1713 (rejecting the notion that “[a]ny adverse effect on the Tribe’s finances caused by the taxation of a private party contracting with the Tribe would be ground to strike the state tax.”). But this argument goes only so far because the Tribe is not contending that the sole federal interest at stake here is income maximization or that income maximization automatically preempts any state taxation. Rather, Indian economic well-being is one of the many federal interests embodied in the extensive federal regulation of leasing activity, and it is a valid interest weighing in favor of preemption in the final balance. See Bracket, 448 U.S. at 149, 100 S.Ct. at 2586. Stranburg further asserts that tribal interest in self-government is not threatened by dual state taxation. But while the Supreme Court precedent seems clear that dual taxation does not threaten tribal interests, see Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95, 114-15, 126 S.Ct. 676, 688-89, 163 L.Ed.2d 429 (2005), that fact is of limited utility here because the Tribe is not assessing its own rental tax (or even arguing on appeal that the state tax precludes it from doing so). So though the Preamble’s general statements expressing concern about the potential of state taxes to “chill” the imposition of tribal taxes cannot support a federal or tribal interest in avoiding dual taxation, Preamble at 72,448, that fact removes little weight from the Tribe’s side of the scale here under the particularized circumstances of this case. Finally, in a variation on the income-maximization argument, Stranburg asserts that any increase in costs for on-reservation projects attributable to the state tax is too indirect for the economic consequences of the tax to support preemption. Of course, it is true that Cotton Petroleum held that such indirect burdens were insufficient to support preemption. 490 U.S. at 186-87, 109 S.Ct. at 1713. But Cotton Petroleum indicated that such indirect burdens were insufficient “absent some special factor such as those present in [Bracket and Ramah ],” with that special factor necessarily being the extensive and exclusive federal regulation of the activities at issue in those two cases. See id.; see also id. at 184-86, 109 S.Ct. at 1711-1713; see also Bracket, 448 U.S. at 151 & n. 15, 100 S.Ct. at 2587-88 & n. 15. As in Bracker and Ramah, the Tribe is not relying solely on adverse economic impact here; the extensive and exclusive federal regulation of Indian land leasing provides the “special factor” absent in Cotton Petroleum. In sum, the federal government administers an extensive, exclusive, comprehensive, and pervasive regulatory framework' governing the leasing of Indian land. Stranburg’s attempt to diminish the value of tribal economic and taxing interests does nothing to minimize the pervasiveness of the federal regulatory scheme, which involves dozens of congressional statutes and federal regulations. See, e.g., 25 U.S.C. §§ 415 — 416j; 25 C.F.R. §§ 162.001-162.703. This scheme is sufficient to bring the federal interests within the scope of Bracker and Ramah, where “the federal regulatory scheme is so pervasive as to preclude the additional burdens sought to be imposed” by the state. Bracker, 448 U.S. at 148, 100 S.Ct. at 2586; Ramah, 458 U.S. at 845, 102 S.Ct. at 3402. Accordingly, absent a state interest of sufficient weight — and raising revenue for providing statewide services generally lacks that heft — Florida’s Rental Tax is preempted. See, e.g., Bracker, 448 U.S. at 148-151, 100 S.Ct. at 2587-88 (conducting an analysis of the state interests after finding the federal scheme was pervasive). Stranburg cannot alter the results of this analysis through his assertions that the Tribe did not meet its burden of producing any evidence on the federal and tribal interests at stake because it “introduced no record evidence whatsoever of the impact of the Rental tax on the Tribe’s business operations or its sovereignty.” In Stranburg’s view, the Tribe was required to put forth evidence that “it was less able to lease the property, had to engage in unique marketing efforts, or had to reduce the rent to accommodate the tax.” According to Stranburg, the Tribe’s reliance on generalized economic arguments is insufficient to support preemption after Cotton Petroleum rejected the indirect-economic-consequences argument. As discussed above, though, the Supreme Court’s rejection of that argument matters only in the absence of an extensive and exclusive federal regulatory scheme. While such specific economic evidence certainly would have bolstered the Tribe’s argument, the regulatory scheme itself is a sufficient federal interest to satisfy the Tribe’s burden of production here. 3. The State’s Interest at Stake To establish the state’s interest in imposing the Rental Tax, Stranburg points to the evidence he introduced of the services that the state provides on the reservation, including law enforcement, criminal prosecution, and health services, as well as “intangible off-reservation benefits ... such as infrastructure and transportation services.” But none of these services are tied to the business of renting commercial property on Indian land. Both Bracker and Ramah note that the state tax must be sufficiently connected to the particular activity taxed to amount to more than just a generalized interest in raising revenue. See Bracker, 448 U.S. at 150-51, 100 S.Ct. at 2587-88 (“[Tjhis is not a case in which the State seeks to assess taxes in return for government functions it performs for those on whom the taxes fall. Nor have respondents been able to identify a legitimate regulatory interest served by the taxes they seek to impose.”); Ramah, 458 U.S. at 843-45 & n. 10, 102 S.Ct. at 3401-3402 & n. 10 (“We are similarly unpersuaded by the State’s argument that the significant services it provides to the Ramah Navajo Indians justify the imposition of this tax. The State does not suggest that these benefits are in any way related to the construction of schools on Indian land.”). Even Cotton Petroleum, while finding that some state services were provided to the plaintiff and tribe, affirmed the general principle that the services rendered must be connected to the tax. See 490 U.S. at 185, 109 S.Ct. at 1712 (“Rather, [Bracket and Ramah ] involved complete abdication or noninvolvement of the State in the on-reservation activity.” (emphasis added)); cf. id. at 186, 109 S.Ct. at 1713 (“This is not a case in which the State has had nothing to do with the on-reservation activity, save tax it.” (emphasis added)). Here, Stranburg has offered no evidence that Florida is involved in any way with a non-Indian’s leasing of commercial property from an Indian tribe on Indian land except taxing it. Nor can Stranburg’s reliance on Wad-dell rescue the state’s interest from being insufficient to sustain the tax. The relationship of the services provided to the interest taxed differed materially in Wad-dell. In Waddell, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the provision of the law-enforcement services, including crowd and traffic control, “was critical to the success” of the specific entertainment events being taxed. Waddell, 91 F.3d at 1238-39. Stranburg has not shown a similar link here. Stranburg also cites Ute Mountain Ute Tribe v. Rodriguez, 660 F.3d 1177, 1199-1200 (10th Cir.2011), for the proposition that off-reservation services can support a state interest. But Ute Mountain addressed New Mexico’s oil and gas taxes and found that they supported “the off-reservation infrastructure used to transport the oil and gas after it is severed.” Id. at 1199. In both of these cases, the tax was clearly and critically connected to the services rendered. While the dollar value of services rendered need not match the amount of taxes paid, Cotton Petroleum, 490 U.S. at 185, 109 S.Ct. at 1712, the services and taxes nonetheless must be connected beyond a mere desire to raise revenue. Although the presence of law enforcement or off-reservation roads in some sense makes leasing on-reservation property more attractive, none of the services cited by Stranburg is critically connected to the business of commercial land leasing on Indian property — the activity taxed by .the Rental Tax — in the way that crowd and traffic control was to entertainment events in Waddell and the use of off-reservation roads was to the transportation of oil and gas from Indian lands in Ute Mountain. In conclusion, we do not defer to the Secretary’s ultimate determination of federal preemption because Bracker and its progeny require a particularized, case-specific balancing of federal, tribal, and state interests. Nevertheless, Florida’s Rental Tax is preempted by federal law under Bracker. Federal statutes, regulations, and even the analysis conducted by the Secretary’s Preamble demonstrate the pervasive and comprehensive federal regulation of the leasing of Indian land. The State of Florida has not shown any state interest in its Rental Tax beyond the general raising of revenue to provide generalized services nor has it pointed to any state regulation of Indian-land leasing that would render the federal regulations nonexclusive. Consequently, the pervasive federal scheme for regulating Indian land leasing preempts Florida’s Rental Tax just as the federal schemes regulating timber and education preempted the state taxes in Bracker and Ramah. C. Does Comity Require Dismissal of the Rental Tax Challenge? Stranburg concludes his attack on the district court’s Rental Tax ruling by renewing his argument that the district court should have abstained from reaching the merits of the Rental Tax issue in the first place. He mentions in passing that the Tribe “should not be able to create an end-run around” the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341 — which would preclude the Ark Entities from bringing a similar federal suit. To the extent that Stranburg is raising a Tax Injunction Act argument against the Tribe on appeal, the argument is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. See Moe v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of Flathead Reservation, 425 U.S. 463, 472-75, 96 S.Ct. 1634, 1640-42, 48 L.Ed.2d 96 (1976) (holding that Indian tribes can challenge state taxation in federal court despite the prohibitions of the Tax Injunction Act); see also Osceola v. Fla. Dep’t of Revenue, 893 F.2d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir.1990). Primarily, though, Stranburg argues that “principles of comity weigh against allowing the Rental Tax claims to proceed.” This issue was raised and rejected at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Stranburg did not renew the comity argument at the summary-judgment stage. More significantly, Stranburg did not include the district court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss in his Notice of Appeal, which mentioned just the final judgment order and the summary-judgment order as the rulings appealed. This Court has determined that it lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal of an order not specifically mentioned in the appellant’s Notice of Appeal. See Osterneck v. E.T. Barwick Indus., Inc., 825 F.2d 1521, 1528-29 (11th Cir.1987); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 701 F.2d 1365, 1374-75 (11th Cir.1983). “We have previously concluded that, where some portions of a judgment and some orders are expressly made a part of the appeal, we must infer that the appellant did not intend to appeal other unmentioned orders or judgments.” Osterneck, 825 F.2d at 1529. By the terms of our precedent and under our continuing obligation to examine jurisdiction at every stage of the proceeding, id. at 1525 n. 5, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to address Stranburg’s appeal of the district court’s order rejecting the comity argument. But even if no jurisdictional bar existed, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to dismiss the federal suit on comity grounds. In the district court, Stranburg primarily invoked Younger abstention, but on appeal, he instead relies heavily on Levin v. Commerce Energy, Inc., 560 U.S. 413, 130 S.Ct. 2323, 176 L.Ed.2d 1131 (2010), a case focused more on the comity doctrine in the context of federal challenges to state tax statutes. In Levin, the Supreme Court decided that a federal court should decline a constitutional challenge to allegedly discriminatory state tax exemptions when an adequate state-court forum is available to decide the challenge. 560 U.S. at 421, 130 S.Ct. at 2330. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court relied on a unique confluence of factors: the plaintiff sought federal-court review of commercial matters over which the state had wide regulatory authority; the suit did not involve fundamental rights or heightened judicial scrutiny; the plaintiffs w