The Supreme Court opens its new term Monday with cases that could reshape religious liberty, gun rights, immigration and the balance between state and federal authority. While the last term was dominated by major cases testing presidential power — including Trump’s authority to restrict birthright citizenship, impose tariffs and fire independent agency officials — many of the court’s marquee cases this term span a wide range of issues, including federalism and individual rights. "There’s a couple of religious freedom cases," Carrie Severino, president of JCN, told Fox News Digital.
"We have a couple cases that touch on state and federal preemption, but I’m not sure there’s an easy theme for all of them." The blockbuster case this term is Suncor Energy v. Boulder County, and it centers on whether Colorado officials can use state tort law to seek damages from oil giants Suncor and ExxonMobil for climate-related harms, or whether federal law blocks those claims. SUPREME COURT CLIMATE SHOWDOWN JOLTED BY ALITO'S LAST-MINUTE DECISION "If Colorado actually succeeds on its nuisance claims and others against these companies, the upshot would not just be these companies changing what they do in a way to protect Colorado or remedy Colorado, but rather it would affect their operations far outside of the state," Adam White, senior fellow at American Enterprise Institute, shared during a Federalist Society Panel.
"And the question is, can Colorado courts reach outside of their own state and try in effect to regulate?" Suncor and ExxonMobil argue that the Clean Air Act gives the federal government authority over interstate and international emissions, leaving Colorado unable to hold them liable for conduct outside the state. But the state argues that it is seeking damages under state law and that the Clean Air Act preserves states’ authority to enforce their own laws. The Supreme Court will decide whether federal law blocks Boulder’s climate lawsuit and whether the justices can hear the case.
Severino said the case is an effort by "climate lawfare activists" to regulate carbon emissions. "If the court is viewing this as an effort to weaponize one jurisdiction's law to really regulate outside its borders, then I think they're going to be not very happy about this claim," Severino said. "If the court really views it as an attempt by Colorado to legislate worldwide actions of these energy companies, then I think they're going to say this is actually something that fits within the federal government's sphere of activity, not a single state." The case marks the first oral arguments heard before the high court.
An Arizona election integrity measure is at the center of another Supreme Court case testing the balance of power between states and the federal government over how elections are run. THESE 11 UPCOMING SUPREME COURT DECISIONS COULD MAKE OR BREAK TRUMP'S SECOND TERM AGENDA Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota stems from an Arizona law requiring documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for certain voter registrations.
Voters who register without that documentation may qualify as "federal-only" voters, allowing them to vote in federal elections but not state and local races. The law also allows the state to purge noncitizens off voter rolls close to an election. The dispute centers on whether the National Voter Registration Act prevents Arizona from imposing additional requirements on voters.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
