Supreme Court this morning It was rejected Claims filed by several states to file complaints claims against other states to file lawsuits against fossil fuel energy companies. As has become a tradition, Judge Thomas (joined by Judge Alito) opposed the court’s acceptance of the motion and refusal to consider complaints about merit.
in Alabama vs. Californiathe Alabama-led coalition of red states had called for Supreme Court intervention to counteract the suits filed by several blue state attorney generals against a fossil fuel company that argued that their actions could be viable under state law. For the reasons I explained before (and the address at the tail end This draft symposium essay), Red State’s complaints are not particularly merit in this attitude. The idea that in one state, you can just file a lawsuit in state court, you can sue another state, is very extraordinary. But it is nonetheless problem that the Supreme Court is highly denial of the declaration of a state that is attempting to invoke the original jurisdiction of the court. A better course was for the court to allow the petition and reject a claim regarding its merits.
Here are Judge Thomas’ opponents.
The court again refuses leave to file a complaint in interstate lawsuits. Alabama and 18 other states have moved for leave to file complaints against California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island. The plaintiffs’ states allege that the defendant state is trying to “determine interstate energy policy” through the active use of tort lawsuits under state law. Complaint Invoice 1–3. The lawsuits “are about to imposs” on plaintiffs’ state accounts.[e] Catastrophic liability and forced remedies for energy companies. . . “For the purpose of placing a global carbon tax on traditional energy industries,” based on out-of-state conduct with out-of-state effects, 1-2. This practice violates the exclusive federal authority and commercial scope in order to continue the exclusive federal authority and commercial scope of emissions between states.
As previously explained, the court’s assumption that there is “discretion to refuse examination” in interstate litigation is “suspectful” at best. Arizonav. California, 589 US ___, ___ (2020) (opinion against rejection of leave claims to claim) (Slip op., at 1); Accord, Nebraska vs Colorado, 577 US 1211, 1211–1213 (2016) (same). “The Constitution establishes our original jurisdiction under essential conditions,” Arizona, 589 US, ___ (Thomas’ opinion, J.) (Slip op., at 1). Article III is[i]nIn all cases. . . There is a state [a] Party, Supreme Court Must do §2, cl. 2 (emphasis added). And Congress has made our original jurisdiction “exclusive” in “all disputes between two or more states.” 28USC §1251(a). . . To exercise the jurisdiction given to us, “To us, our jurisdiction in this context appears to be compulsory. Colorado River Water Reserve v. United States, 424 US 800, 817 (1976).
However, courts are routinely “declining”[s] Texasv. California, 593 US ___, ___ (opposed from Alito, J., Alito, J., and Alito’s refusal to file a complaint) (Slip op., at 6 at 6) (Case Collection). Illinois v. Milwaukee, 406 US 91, 93–94 (1972).
This discretionary approach is a modern invention that the courts have never persuasively justified. See Texas, 593 US, at ___ –__ (Alito, J.’s opinion) (Slip op., 3–6) (Recorded history). For example, Ohiov. In Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., 401 US 493 (1971), the court found that “it may have initially been the first to consider exercising its original jurisdiction whenever appropriately sought.” Id. , 497. However, the court declared “changes in the American legal system” and “development of American society,” and declared the mandatory exercise of the original jurisdiction “as a practical matter” and “unacceptable.” Same as above. Wyandotte was a case under our original jurisdiction of non-existence, but the court ruled the same in regards to our exclusive original jurisdiction, including interstate cases. He argued that original jurisdiction restrictions were necessary. (All Curiam) (Illinois Quote, 406
USA, 93–94).
In my view, such careful decisions are not ours. The Constitution and Congress set boundaries of the original jurisdiction. These parameters should be
Definitive: “We have no more right to refuse to exercise any jurisdiction given to us than to take away what is not given.” Cohensv. Virginia, 6 wheat. 264, 404 (1821) (in the case of Marshall, CJ, courts).
The court’s resistance to accept jurisdiction in interstate litigation is also troubling, as this court is the only court that can hear such cases. “If this court does not exercise jurisdiction over a dispute between two states, then the dissatisfied states do not have a judicial forum seeking relief,” Nebraska, 577 US, 1212 (Thomas’ opinion, J.). Therefore, the court leaves 19 today
Plaintiffs are states that have no legal action to prove their claims against the five defendants states.
This discretionary approach should be reconsidered. Our exclusive original jurisdiction over interstate litigation reflects decisions by framers and legislatures on the need to acknowledge the “class and dignity” of the state and “open and publicize the nation’s highest courts” for such cases. Amesv. Kansasex rel. See Johnston, 111 US 449, 464 (1884); Texas, 593 US, at ___ (Alito, J. opinion) (Slip op., at 7). However, the court withholds the power to immediately separate interstate lawsuits for essentially policy reasons. The court today exercises its power to reject lawsuits in almost half the states of the country, claiming serious unconstitutional violations. I’m at least because the plaintiffs’ state allows them to file
Complaints, I respectfully oppose it from the court’s refusal to submit Lleave.
