with whom OPALA, J., joins, dissenting:
Today’s opinion closes the state courts to a taxpayer’s § 1983 action, which may have the effect of opening the federal courts to state tax challenges. Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U.S. 439, 111 S.Ct. 865, 112 L.Ed.2d 969 (1991) requires a substantive remedy be afforded taxpayers aggrieved by state laws that violate the Commerce Clause. The Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341 requires the state to provide minimum procedural protection to taxpayers. The majority fails to recognize the distinction. Accordingly I must respectfully dissent, 'even though I would, as the Court does today, affirm the district court’s dismissal of the § 1983 claim in this cause.
In Private Truck Council of America, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 806 P.2d 598 (Okla.1991), this Court reversed the district court, holding that 68 O.S.Supp.1982 § 607.1 and 47 O.S.Supp.1986, § 1120(K) violate the Commerce Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, and allowing partial refunds of taxes paid thereunder, but affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the § 1983 claim. On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court ordered “that the judgment of the above court in this cause is vacated with costs, and that this cause is remanded to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma for further consideration in light of Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U.S. [439, 111 S.Ct. 865, 112 L.Ed.2d 969] (1991).” Dennis v. Higgins holds that the Commerce Clause confers rights, privileges and immunities upon state taxpayers within the meaning of § 1983. The Dennis holding rests upon the Commerce Clause restriction on state power combined with the Due Process Clause entitlement to relief. Hence, Dennis allows a taxpayer to seek meaningful relief in a § 1983 action in state court where the state remedy does not provide meaningful relief from the exaction of taxes in violation of the Commerce Clause.
Similar to the instant cause, Dennis was a class-action suit by an Ohio motor carrier in the state court of Nebraska seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and recovery of state taxes paid pursuant to Nebraska’s retaliatory tax statute and costs and attorney fees. The Nebraska trial court declared the challenged statute violative of the Commerce Clause, entered a permanent injunction, awarded attorney fees and costs under the common fund doctrine and dismissed the § 1983 claim. The dismissal of the § 1983 claim was challenged on appeal. Relying on Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware v. Kassel, 730 F.2d 1139 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 834, 105 S.Ct. 126, 83 L.Ed.2d 68 (1984), the Nebraska Supreme Court determined that Commerce Clause violations are not cognizable under § 1983 and affirmed the dismissal. The United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, holding that a taxpayer has a right within the meaning of § 1983 to seek relief for Commerce Clause violations. The Dennis holding is grounded in the Commerce Clause and McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Dept. of Business Regulation of Florida, 496 U.S. 18, 110 S.Ct. 2238, 110 L.Ed.2d 17 (1990):
... The Commerce Clause “has long been recognized as a self-executing limitation on the power of the States to enact laws imposing substantial burdens on such commerce.” South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 82, 87, [104 S.Ct. 2237, 2240, 81 L.Ed.2d 71] (1984). In addition, individuals injured by state action may sue and obtain injunctive and declaratory relief. See, e.g., McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Dept. of Business Regulation of Fla., 496 U.S. 18, 31 [110 S.Ct. 2238, 2247, 110 L.Ed.2d 17] (1990). Indeed, the trial court in the case before us awarded such relief, and respondents do not contest that decision. We have also recently held that taxpayers who are required to pay taxes before challenging a state tax that is subsequently determined to violate the Commerce Clause are entitled to retrospective relief “that will cure any unconstitutional discrimination against interstate commerce during the contested period.” Id., at 51 [110 S.Ct. at 2258]. This combined restriction on state power and entitlement to relief under the Commerce Clause amounts to a “right, privilege, or immunity” under the ordi*144nary meaning of those terms. [Footnote omitted.]
[Emphasis added.]
Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U.S. at 447, 111 S.Ct. at 870-71.
McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 496 U.S. 18, 110 S.Ct. 2238, 110 L.Ed.2d 17 (1990) was initiated to challenge Florida’s liquor tax as violative of the Commerce Clause because of its preferences for liquor made from crops which Florida is adapted to growing. A similar tax scheme had been struck down in Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263, 104 S.Ct. 3049, 82 L.Ed.2d 200 (1984). The Florida Supreme Court declared that the tax scheme violated the Commerce Clause and permanently enjoined its enforcement, but refused to order refund of the tax. The United States Supreme Court addressed the question of whether prospective relief [declaratory and injunctive relief], by itself, exhausts the requirements of federal law where a state places a taxpayer under duress promptly to pay a tax when due and relegates him to a postpayment refund action in which he can challenge the tax’s legality. Because the exaction of a tax constitutes deprivation of property, the unanimous McKesson Court determined that prospective relief alone was not sufficient to satisfy the commands of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Analyzing the states’ constitutional obligation to provide procedural safeguards against the unlawful exaction of taxes, McKesson sets forth three general categories of relief that would be meaningful under the Due Process Clause: 1) a remedy to redress taxpayer grievances before payment; or 2) a remedy for refund of the unlawful part of the tax from those who were required to pay it; or 3) imposition of back taxes on those who were not required to pay the tax resulting in the discrimination. The McKesson Court left the selection and fine-tuning of the relief to be afforded a taxpayer to each state, as long as the relief is meaningful — cures, at least partially, the mischief that has been done.
... We have already noted that States have a legitimate interest in sound fiscal planning and that this interest is sufficiently weighty to allow States to withhold pre-deprivation relief for allegedly unlawful tax assessments, providing postdeprivation relief only. See supra, at 37 [110 S.Ct. at 2250-51]. But even if a State chooses to provide partial refunds as a means of curing the unlawful discrimination (as opposed to increasing the tax assessment of those previously favored), the State’s interest in financial stability does not justify a refusal to provide relief. As noted earlier, see supra, at 46 [110 S.Ct. at 2255], the State here does not and cannot claim that the Florida courts’ invalidation of the Liquor Tax was a surprise, and even after the trial court found a Commerce Clause violation the State failed to take reasonable precautions to reduce its ultimate exposure for the unconstitutional tax. And in the future, States may avail themselves of a variety of procedural protection against any disruptive effects of a tax scheme’s invalidation, such as providing by statute that refunds will be available to only those taxpayers paying under protest, or enforcing relatively short statutes of limitation applicable to refund actions. See supra, at 45 [110 S.Ct. at 2254]. Such procedural measures would sufficiently protect States’ fiscal security when weighed against their obligation to provide meaningful relief for their unconstitutional taxation.
Respondents also observe that the State’s choice of relief may entail various administrative costs (apart from the “cost” of any refund itself [Footnote omitted.]). Cf. Mathews [v. Eldridge], supra [424 U.S. 319], at 348 [96 S.Ct. 893, at 909, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) ] (“[T]he Government’s interest ... in conserving scarce fiscal and administrative resources is a factor that must be weighed” when determining precise contours of process due). The State may, of course, consider such costs when choosing between the various avenues of relief open to it. Because the Florida Supreme Court did not recognize in its refund proceeding the State’s obligation under the Due Process Clause to rectify the invalidity of its deprivation of petitioner’s property, the court did not consider how any administrative costs might influence the selection and fine-tuning of the relief *145afforded petitioner. We leave this to the state court on remand.
McKesson, 496 U.S. at 50-51, 110 S.Ct. at 2257-58.
By its reliance on McKesson in finding that a Commerce Clause violation is within the meaning of § 1983, Dennis stands for the propositions that: 1) a state taxpayer is entitled to meaningful relief from the payment of taxes which are subsequently determined to be violative of the Commerce Clause; and, 2) where the state remedies do not provide meaning relief, a state taxpayer may seek relief in state courts pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 That is, I read Dennis as providing a § 1983 remedy to state taxpayers for Commerce Clause violations when, and only when, the state has failed to provide a remedy that affords meaning relief. Thus, rather than instruct our district courts to decline jurisdiction over a taxpayer’s § 1983 claim, we should direct our district courts to entertain a taxpayer’s § 1983 claim whenever in a case tendered to them the available state law remedies are found short of the “meaningful relief’ requirement of the Due Process Clause.
Although the majority does not review the state remedies, its conclusion that the state law remedies available to the taxpayers herein are adequate is correct even under the “meaningful relief’ requirement of the Due Process Clause as explained in McKesson. Oklahoma’s predeprivation remedies afforded taxpayers are limited to situations where the authority of the assessing entity is challenged or where the tax has not become due and payable.2 Oklahoma’s postdeprivation administrative remedies with the right of appellate review are limited only by time restrictions, while the district court remedies are further limited.3
1. Where a taxpayer fails to report and pay or under-reports and under-pays, the Oklahoma Tax Commission may issue a proposed assessment and the taxpayer may seek an administrative hearing on the proposed assessment by way of a written protest before the payment of the tax. 68 O.S.1991, § 221. However judicial review of the protest by appeal may not be had without payment of the proposed assessment under protest and, if the taxpayer prevails the taxes paid under protest will be refunded. 68 O.S.1991, § 225.
2. Where a taxpayer has voluntarily reported and paid taxes, the taxpayer may claim a refund of taxes paid within three years from the date of the claim alleging *146erroneous payment. 68 O.S.1991, § 227.4 If the refund is denied at the division level, the taxpayer may seek an administrative hearing on the claim. 68 O.S.1991, §§ 227 and 228. Judicial review of the claim for refund by appeal may be had, and if the taxpayer prevails the taxes erroneously paid during the previous three years will be refunded. 68 O.S.1991, § 225.
3. Where a taxpayer voluntarily reports but pays the tax under protest, as the motor carriers did in this cause, the taxpayer may claim a refund and seek an administrative hearing on the challenge to the payment. 68 O.S.1991, § 207. Judicial review of the challenge by appeal may be had, and if the taxpayer prevails the taxes paid under protest will be refunded. 68 O.S.1991, § 225.
4. In addition to the administrative and judicial review provided in 68 O.S.1991, §§ 207, 221, 227 and 225, a taxpayer may seek review in the state district court. 68 O.S.1991, § 226.5 The state district court remedy is limited to challenges of taxes under federal law. 68 O.S.1991, § 226(c).6 If the challenged taxes have not been paid, the taxpayer must pay under protest within thirty days from the mailing of the assessment and give notice of intent to file suit. 68 O.S.1991, § 226(b).7 Similarly situated taxpayers may likewise pay the tax under protest and, upon request, enter into an agreement to be bound by the decision in another taxpayer suit, rather than file a separate suit. 68 O.S.1991, § 226(d). If the taxpayer prevails the taxes paid under protest will be refunded. 68 O.S.1991, § 226(b).8
These postdeprivation taxpayer remedies allow the refund of taxes paid under protest and the refund of erroneous payment of taxes during the preceding three years. Where *147the tax is challenged under federal law, the district court remedy allows taxpayers to seek refund of the taxes paid under protest without the necessity of multiple suits. With these postdeprivation remedies, Oklahoma preserves its fiscal affairs from disruption except for the refund of taxes paid under protest or taxes paid voluntarily during the preceding three years. Where suit is filed in district court, Oklahoma has further protected its fiscal security by allowing a single suit for the determination of a violation of federal law thereby dispensing with the costs of multiple suits. These postdeprivation administrative and judicial remedies afforded taxpayers in Oklahoma fit neatly within the “meaningful relief” requirement of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as pronounced in McKesson.
The district court denied the § 1983 claim herein, for failure to state a claim, and the attendant § 1988 attorney fees request. Because my review of extant jurisprudence convinces me that the state remedies which were affordable to these taxpayers in this case satisfy the “meaningful relief’ standards, I would affirm the district courts dismissal of the § 1983 and § 1988 claims herein.
Even though I would reach the same result reached by the Court today, the flaw in the majority’s rationale must be discussed. Following State v. Quill, 500 N.W.2d 196 (N.D.1993), cert. denied — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct.173, 126 L.Ed.2d 132, the majority opinion holds that our state courts should decline to grant relief under § 1983 to a taxpayer aggrieved by a tax statute that violates the Commerce Clause because the federal courts are prohibited from granting such relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1341. Section 1341, the Tax Injunction Act of 1937, provides that the federal district courts “shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.” The federal Tax Injunction Act appears to defer to state remedies similarly to McKesson. But, neither the majority nor the Quill court recognize the procedural/substantive demarcation. The “plain, speedy and efficient” remedy in state court requirement in § 1341 is a proee-dural requirement. Rosewell v. LaSalle National Bank, 450 U.S. 503,101 S.Ct. 1221, 67 L.Ed.2d 464 (1981). The “meaningful relief’ requirement of the Due Process Clause as pronounced in McKesson is a substantive requirement. Oklahoma’s taxpayer remedies satisfy the minimum procedural requirements of § 1341. Cities Service Gas Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 656 F.2d 584 (10th Cir.1981) cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1124, 102 S.Ct. 972, 71 L.Ed.2d 111, following Rosewell. However, it does not necessarily follow that those same remedies are meaningful under the Due Process Clause. Hence, Quill may be no more than a primrose path.
Quill is not virtually identical to this cause, as the majority says. North Dakota sought declaratory judgment in its state court that Quill Corp., as an out-of-state entity doing substantial mail order business in the state, was required to collect, report and remit state use tax. Quill Corp. had refused to collect the North Dakota tax — that is, Quill Corp. had not been deprived of any property right except maybe for the cost of defending the declaratory judgment. Quill Corp. filed a counterclaim alleging it was entitled to relief under § 1983. The North Dakota Supreme Court upheld the tax statute which imposed the collection duty on an out-of-state vendor, concluding that the statute is consistent with National Geographic Society v. California Board of Equalization, 430 U.S. 551, 97 S.Ct. 1386, 51 L.Ed.2d 631 (1977) and that National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753, 87 S.Ct. 1389, 18 L.Ed.2d 505 (1967) is obsolete. Quill Corp.’s counterclaim was dismissed. On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court reversed the North Dakota Supreme Court, concluding that the statute violated the Commerce Clause, refused to overrule National Bellas Hess and remanded the cause to the state for further proceedings. Quill Corporation v. North Dakota, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1904, 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992). In Quill, the High Court does not mention the dismissal of § 1983 claim, nor did it remand in light of Dennis v. Higgins. The North Dakota Supreme Court was not concerned with a meaningful McKesson refund relief as is involved herein. Thus, Quill is readily distinguish*148able and should not be readily followed. Further, the Quill rationale does not fall within the guidelines set by the United States Supreme Court in Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 110 S.Ct. 2430, 110 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990), for state courts to decline jurisdiction over one category of § 1983 claims.
Predicating a § 1983 taxpayer suit upon the inadequacy of the available state remedies is consistent with the aftermath of Dennis. The United States Supreme Court has said that “§ 1983 remains a generally and presumptively available remedy for claimed violations of federal law. Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U.S. 439, 443, 111 S.Ct. 865, 868, 112 L.Ed.2d 969 (1991).” Uvadas v. Bradshaw, California Labor Commissioner, — U.S. -, -, 114 S.Ct. 2068, 2083, 129 L.Ed.2d 93 (1994). Further, in Heck v. Humphrey, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), the Court said that a § 1983 action would be denied a prisoner, unless and until the conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged, invalidated or impugned by the grant of habeas corpus.
.In light of the following authorities, Dennis v. Higgins can only be read as affording a taxpayer the right to file suit for violations of the Commerce Clause in state court under § 1983. Federal Courts may not render declaratory judgments as to the constitutionality of state tax laws. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U.S. 293, 63 S.Ct. 1070, 87 L.Ed. 1407 (1943). Federal Courts may not grant damages relief in a § 1983 action challenging state tax law, if taxpayers have an adequate state remedy for protection of their federal right. 28 U.S.C. § 1341 and Fair Assessment in Real Estate Association v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100, 102 S.Ct. 177, 70 L.Ed.2d 271 (1981). Absent waiver by the state or a valid congressional override, the Eleventh Amendment bars damages actions against States and state officers in their official capacity in federal court. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985). Federal law is part of the Law of the Land and enforceable in state court. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 110 S.Ct. 2430, 110 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990). Claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may be maintained in our district courts. Martin v. Harrah Independent School District, 543 P.2d 1370 (Okla.1975) and Willbourn v. City of Tulsa, 721 P.2d 803 (Okla.1986).
. An Oklahoma taxpayer may not maintain an action to enjoin the collection of a tax. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Harris, 191 Okla. 28, 126 P.2d 685 (1942). However, an Oklahoma taxpayer may maintain a declaratory judgment action to challenge the validity of a taxing statute on its face before the tax becomes due, Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Smith, 610 P.2d 794 (1980), or to challenge the authority of the assessing entity. United Airlines, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, 789 P.2d 1305 (Okla.1990).
. Citation is to the 1991 codification of the statutes providing taxpayer remedies. Although these statutes may have been amended since this suit was instituted and since the 1991 codification, the substance of the taxpayer remedies have not changed. Also, the remedies outlined herein are not intended to be exhaustive. Each of the various tax codes contain additional remedies or restrictions peculiar to the tax. For instance, income tax refunds are authorized and limited by 68 O.S.1991, § 2373. See, Strelecki v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 872 P.2d 910 (Okla.1993).
. Taxpayers who did not protest the payment of a tax under a statute which is subsequently declared unconstitutional have a statutory right to recover taxes paid within the time limits prescribed. Sun Oil Company v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 620 P.2d 896 (1981). The Sun Oil case involved refund of use taxes that were declared unconstitutional in an original action before this Court in Phillips v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 577 P.2d 1278 (Okla.1978).
. Subsection (a) of Section 226, as amended by 1990 Okla.Sess.Laws, ch. 339, § 16, provides:
(a) In addition to the right to a protest of a proposed assessment as authorized by Section 221 of this title, a right of action is hereby created to afford a remedy to a taxpayer aggrieved by the provisions of this article or of any other state tax law, or who resists the collection of or enforcement of the rules and regulations of the Tax Commission relating to the collection of any state tax; however, such remedy shall be limited as prescribed by subsection (c) of this section.
. The judicial remedy granted in § 226 is limited to cases which meet the statutory delineated criteria 1) an unlawful burden on interstate commerce, 2) violative of Acts of Congress or the United States Constitution, or 3) in cases where jurisdiction is vested in any of the courts of the United States. Cimarron Industries, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 621 P.2d 539 (Okla.1980), wherein we decided that the taxpayer failed to bring itself within § 226 and thus should have exhausted its administrative remedies. Subsequently in Ladd Petroleum Corporation v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 767 P.2d 879 (Okla.1989), this Court concluded that there is no requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies under § 226. The dispositive issue in Ladd was whether the trial court erred in sustaining the Oklahoma Tax Commission's demurrer to the evidence on the basis that the taxpayer was not entitled to maintain an action under § 226 because it failed to present evidence of a violation of federal law.
Allowing taxpayers to assert federal challenges in district court without the necessity of exhausting administrative remedies avoids needless litigation when the administrative agency has no authority to declare a tax statute void as contrary to federal law, Dow Jones & Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 787 P.2d 843 (Okla.1990).
. Pursuant to § 226, the payment of a proposed assessment under protest within thirty days is jurisdictional and may not be extended under the provisions of § 221 that allow an extention of time to file a protest and seek an administrative hearing. Ladd Petroleum Corporation v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 619 P.2d 602 (Okla.1980).
. In Stallings v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, appeal, 880 P.2d 912, opinion promulgated on July 19, 1994, this Court ruled that § 226 provides a district court remedy to a taxpayer against whom the OTC has issued a proposed assessment. Stallings denied a § 226 action to the taxpayers who had overpaid taxes and claimed the presence of a federal constitutional infirmity by means of an unlawful exaction. The Stallings opinion could bring Oklahoma's postdeprivation remedies below the "meaningful relief" demanded by federal due process as to those taxpayers who self-assess an illegal exaction as required by the tax reporting and paying statutory provisions.