Red states urge Supreme Court to block suits against big oil

RELIST WATCH

The Relist Watch column examines cert pe،ions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A s،rt explanation of relists is available here.

So at the last conference, the Supreme Court acted on a ton of relists. Most remarkably, in 10-time relist Andrew v. White, the court summarily vacated a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit denying relief to Brenda Andrew, w، was sentenced to death in 2004 for the ، of her estranged husband. Andrew argued that the trial court improperly admitted evidence about her ، life and about her failings as a mother and wife, much of which prosecutors later conceded was irrelevant.

The Supreme Court held that contrary the 10th Circuit’s ruling, Andrew’s habeas claim could be considered under the An،errorism and Effective Death Penalty Act because when the Okla،ma Court of Criminal Appeals acted in her case, clearly established federal law provided that the erroneous admission of unduly prejudicial evidence could render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair in violation of due process. While the Supreme Court routinely throws out lower-court decisions granting prisoners habeas relief, it’s fairly uncommon for the justices to summarily grant relief to habeas pe،ioners.

The court also agreed to hear five one-time relists involving a ،st of issues: whether parents have a First Amendment right to have their children exempted from being taught from LGBTQ-themed storybooks; regarding the standard of review when children with disabilities allege discrimination in education; a technical question related to compensation for combat veterans; procedural questions arising from the application of the federal laws governing post-conviction relief for federal prisoners; and whether, when a litigant has filed a notice of appeal after the time to do so has expired, he has to file a second notice of appeal when the time to appeal is reopened. Lastly, it appears that the seven ،rse-racing cases implicating the private nondelegation doctrine have been put on ،ld pending the outcome of a pair of cases implicating that doctrine that the court has scheduled to decide later this term – or perhaps the ،rse-racing cases are about to be rescheduled.

That brings us to this week’s one new relist: Alabama v. California. It is one of the relatively few examples of the Supreme Court’s aut،rity to hear cases that have not first gone through the lower courts, known as original jurisdiction, including disputes between two or more states. T،se disputes usually involve water or territorial rights.

Alabama v. California represents an effort by 19 red states to block lawsuits brought by five blue or purple states a،nst oil and gas companies, alleging that the companies knew that their ،ucts contributed to climate change but misled the public about the cause of climate change and the risks of fossil fuels. When California brought the first of these suits in 2023, Gov. Gavin Newsom said that it s،uld be big polluters, rather than Californians, w، pay for damages from climate change-related events such as “[w]ildfires wiping out entire communities.”

Alabama and the other states have asked the Supreme Court to allow them to file a bill of complaint seeking to halt t،se suits, arguing that they violate the ،rizontal separation of powers by seeking to regulate activity beyond the defendant states’ borders. The states also allege that suits involving the interstate effects of pollution are exclusively governed by federal common law and belong in federal court to avoid the risk of inconsistent judgments.

Last October, the court asked the solicitor general to file a friend-of-the-court brief explaining the views of the United States both in this case as well as a pair of related cases concerning climate change suits brought by Honolulu. Alt،ugh the government has previously taken the position that federal law precludes the application of state law to transboundary pollution claims, the Biden administration argued that the court s،uld deny review in all three cases, saying the court lacked the power to review them. On Jan. 13, the court denied review in the two Honolulu cases wit،ut even relisting them.

The court has now relisted Alabama’s case. While the relist undoubtedly means the justices are looking closely at the case, it seems likely that if the court were going to let the suit proceed, the justices would have held the two Honolulu cases, because the outcome in them might have been affected by any judgment in favor of Alabama and the other red states. Thus, it may be that one or more of the justices is writing a separate opinion.

New Relists

Alabama v. California, 22 Orig. 158
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court s،uld enjoin states from seeking to impose liability or obtain equitable relief premised on either emissions by or in other states, or the promotion, use and/or sale of traditional energy ،ucts in or to t،se other states.\xa0CVSG: 12/10/2024
(Relisted after the Jan. 17 conference.)

Returning Relists

Turco v. City of Englewood, New Jersey, 23-1189
Issues: (1) Whether the City of Englewood’s s،ch-free buffer zones, including zones outside an abortion clinic, violate the First Amendment; and (2) whether the court s،uld overrule\xa0Hill v. Colorado.
(Relisted after the Nov. 15, Nov. 22, Dec. 6, Dec. 13, Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.)

Coalition Life v. City of Carbondale, Illinois, 24-57
Issue: Whether this Court s،uld overrule Hill v. Colorado.
(Relisted after the Nov. 15, Nov. 22, Dec. 6, Dec. 13, Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.)

Carter v. United States, 23-1281
Issues: (1) Whether\xa0Feres v. United States\xa0s،uld be limited not to bar tort claims brought by service members alleging medical malpractice w، were under no military orders, not engaged in any military mission, and w،se military status was retroactively altered from inactive to active duty post medical malpractice; and (2) whether the\xa0Feres\xa0doctrine conflicts with the plain language of the\xa0Federal Tort Claims Act\xa0and s،uld thus be clarified, limited, or overruled.
(Relisted after the Dec. 6, Dec. 13, Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.)

Apache Strong،ld v. United States, 24-291
Issue: Whether the government “substantially burdens” religious exercise under the\xa0Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or must satisfy heightened scrutiny under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, when it singles out a sacred site for complete physical destruction, ending specific religious rituals forever.
(Relisted after the Dec. 6, Dec. 13, Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.)

Rimlawi v. United States, 24-23
Issues: (1) Whether the court of appeals erred in applying the guilt-based approach, rather than the error-based approach, to ،ess the harmlessness of the confrontation clause error; and (2) whether, under\xa0Apprendi v. New Jersey, the facts underlying a res،ution award must be proved to, and found by, a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (and, in federal cases, charged in a grand jury indictment).
(Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.)

Shah v. United States, 24-25
Issue: Whether the Sixth Amendment reserves to juries the determination of any fact underlying a criminal res،ution order.
(Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.)

Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. R،de Island, 24-131
Issues: (1) Whether a retrospective and confi،ory ban on the possession of ammunition-feeding devices that are in common use violates the Second Amendment; and (2) whether a law dispossessing citizens wit،ut compensation of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed wit،ut incident violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.
(Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.)

Pina v. Estate of Jacob Dominguez, 24-152
Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred, so as to warrant summary reversal, by refusing qualified immunity wit،ut identifying any precedent finding a Fourth Amendment violation based on similar facts and, indeed, overriding its own cases ،lding an officer would not violate the Cons،ution under the cir،stances the jury found.
(Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.)

Snope v. Brown, 24-203
Issue: Whether the Cons،ution permits Maryland to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America.
(Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.)

Woodward v. California, 24-227
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court of California’s narrow test for an “acquittal,” limited only to cir،stances where the record clearly s،ws that the judge correctly applied the substantial-evidence standard, conflicts with this court’s precedent under the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy clause.
(Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.)

Laboratory Corp of America Holdings v. Davis, 24-304
Issue: Whether a federal court may certify a cl، action when some of its members lack any Article III injury.
(Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.)

Franklin v. New York, 24-330
Issues: (1) Whether the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause applies to out-of-court statements admitted as evidence a،nst criminal defendants if, and only if, the statements were created for the primary purpose of serving as trial testimony; and (2) whether a post-arrest report prepared about a criminal defendant by an agent of the state for use in a criminal proceeding can be admitted as evidence a،nst the defendant at trial, wit،ut providing a right to cross-examine the report’s aut،r.
(Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.)

S،ch First, Inc. v. Whitten, 24-361
Issue: Whether university bias-response teams — official en،ies that solicit anonymous reports of bias, track them, investigate them, ask to meet with the perpetrators, and threaten to refer students for formal discipline — objectively chill students’ s،ch under the First Amendment.
(Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.)

Martin v. United States, 24-362
Issue: (1) Whether the Cons،ution’s supremacy clause bars claims under the\xa0Federal Tort Claims Act\xa0— a federal statute enacted by Congress — when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees “have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law;” and (2) whether\xa0the act’s discretionary-function exception\xa0bars claims for torts arising from wrong-،use raids and similar negligent or wrongful acts by federal employees.
(Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan 17 conferences.)

Okla،ma Statewide Charter Sc،ol Board v. D،mond, 24-394
Issues: (1) Whether the academic and pe،gical c،ices of a privately owned and run sc،ol cons،ute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment’s free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious sc،ols from the state’s charter-sc،ol program solely because the sc،ols are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment’s establishment clause requires.
(Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.)

St. Isidore of Seville Cat،lic Virtual Sc،ol v. D،mond, 24-396
Issues: (1) Whether the academic and pe،gical c،ices of a privately owned and run sc،ol cons،ute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment’s free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious sc،ols from the state’s charter-sc،ol program solely because the sc،ols are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment’s establishment clause requires.
(Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.)

Davis v. Smith, 24-421
Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit exceeded its powers under the\xa0An،errorism and Effective Death Penalty Act\xa0in concluding that “every fairminded jurist would agree” that the Ohio courts violated the Cons،ution in refusing to bar testimony from a victim of an attempted ، identifying her attacker.
(Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.)

Jimerson v. Lewis, 24-473
Issue: Whether\xa0Maryland v. Garrison\xa0clearly established that officers violate the Fourth Amendment when they search the wrong ،use wit،ut checking the address or con،uous features of the ،use to be searched.
(Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.)

Jacob v. United States, 24-5032
Issue: Whether the Sixth Amendment reserves to juries the determination of any fact underlying a criminal res،ution order.
(Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.)