The Oil Companies are attempting to avoid this by claiming States do not have the authority to bring claims against them for pollution.
The States, figuring this would be TOCs stance, are attempting to argue this is not about regulation, but about collection of damages as a result of TOCs deceptive practices about the realities of pollution-created downstream effect.
With Alito recused, there is a potential for this to land as a split decision which would allow the current lawsuit to proceed.
This sounds like white cat spinny chair evil villain stuff, but it's common practice for a defendant to attempt to dismiss the lawsuit on any and every reasonable ground they can think of.
Its a hail mary but if it works it can save a lot of lawyer time and possibly disrupt the entire trial process, saving the defendant a lot of money.
Ars is amplifying it for outrage bait, but it's nothing notable unless it works.
The Oil Companies are attempting to avoid this by claiming States do not have the authority to bring claims against them for pollution.
The States, figuring this would be TOCs stance, are attempting to argue this is not about regulation, but about collection of damages as a result of TOCs deceptive practices about the realities of pollution-created downstream effect.
With Alito recused, there is a potential for this to land as a split decision which would allow the current lawsuit to proceed.
The argument is about State's Rights essentially. Can a state file a claim against a corporation that only has a small footprint in the state?
Where are those State's Rights people on this?
This sounds like white cat spinny chair evil villain stuff, but it's common practice for a defendant to attempt to dismiss the lawsuit on any and every reasonable ground they can think of.
Its a hail mary but if it works it can save a lot of lawyer time and possibly disrupt the entire trial process, saving the defendant a lot of money.
Ars is amplifying it for outrage bait, but it's nothing notable unless it works.