From birthright citizenship to climate lawfare and women’s sports, Supreme Court justices face essential questions
As the Supreme Court heads into the new year, its docket makes clear that the justices aren’t easing into a quiet second half of the term. This winter, we’ll get hearings in a series of cases that go to the core of federalism, equal protection, executive power and even the meaning of citizenship itself. And looming behind the argument calendar is the anticipation of major opinions — some of them likely to arrive well before the traditional end-of-June finale — that will shape the legal and political landscape for years to come.
The January calendar opens with Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish, a case the court should use to put an overdue stop to the abuse of state tort law as a weapon against nationally significant industries. At issue is whether energy companies sued by Louisiana parishes over decades-old oil-and-gas activity may remove those cases to federal court. That question may sound technical, but the stakes couldn’t be higher.
Local governments, backed by well-funded activist groups, have pursued environmental claims designed not to remedy concrete harms, but to use sympathetic state courts to impose sweeping policy change. Allowing such suits to proceed in venues hostile to manufacturers and producers invites inconsistent legal standards and massive verdicts untethered from federal policy. A ruling for Chevron wouldn’t immunize companies from accountability; it would prevent state courts from becoming shadow regulators of national energy policy.
Continue reading the entire piece here at FoxNews.com
______________________
Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute.
Photo by Prasit Photo/Getty Images