Tuesday, June 18, 2024

Top 5 This Week

Related Stories

Breaking: Multiple States REVOLT Against Joe Biden

A federal lawsuit has been initiated by a coalition of 19 Republican-led states, with Alabama at the forefront, against five Democrat-run states. The attorneys general of these states have come together to challenge the Democrats’ “radical” green agenda policies, which claim to combat climate change.

The lawsuit argues that the Democrat-led states, namely California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, are attempting to coerce red states into adhering to stringent globalist climate policies. This, in turn, could potentially jeopardize the affordability of energy for residents in these states. The filing was submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, emphasizing that the actions of these Democrat-led states are effectively dictating national energy policy and imposing the consequences of their restrictions on politically opposing states.

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach said:

“California and New Jersey and the defendant states are trying to make national energy policy through state laws. And if the Supreme Court does not step in, they may succeed. If the defendant states’ laws have their desired effects, fossil fuel energy companies across the nation will either be hit with massive damages or have to change their policies directly,” he added. “And, those defendant states will affect the availability of cheap, affordable energy in our states. One state does not have the right to control policy in another state.”

Kobach emphasized the necessity of escalating this case directly to the Supreme Court, despite criticisms suggesting otherwise. He highlighted the historical jurisdiction of the high bench over interstate disputes and emphasized the significant opposing interests at play in this particular filing. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall is spearheading the effort and asserted his right to bring the complaint directly to the Supreme Court.

Marshall underscored the original jurisdiction of the high court over state actions and referenced previous cases where one state initiated legal proceedings against another and sought resolution from the SCOTUS.

“When you have two sovereigns that are making claims against one another, it is the appropriate venue for those claims to be heard,” he said.

Marshall stated that the main issue is essentially that defendant states are formulating climate policies that will disproportionately impact Alabama and other plaintiff states.

“I think one of the things that is so most objectionable is the fact they are using common law claims, plus the statutory Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims, as a vehicle to engage in climate policy,” he said. “I think, broadly, the issue is how does this affect the constituents of our individual states? And so the legitimate question is: Why should we care in Alabama how California chooses to operate in the state courts themselves? Well, if California prevails, they’re really going to be able to do two things,” Marshall said. “They’re going to be able to impose a tax on carbon because that’s what [legal] ‘damages’ truly are in these cases.”

He conveyed optimism that the Supreme Court would recognize the federal nature of energy and climate policy, emphasizing that it should not be subject to state control in a manner that could impact other entities.

Popular Articles