,
14 tweets,
8 min read
Read on Twitter
In Nevada v Hall (1979), which SCOTUS just reversed, a Nevada employee caused an accident on a Calif. highway. Nevada argued that the Californians it injured IN CALIF. (a) couldn't sue in Cal., or (b) at best were limited to $25k damages per NEVADA law. 1/
On its face, the new decision is just about whether one state can be sued in the courts of another state. But there are deeper issues here:
1) As the dissent notes, this signals that SCOTUS is willing to jettison ALL precedent. Precedent like, you know, reproductive rights.
2/
1) As the dissent notes, this signals that SCOTUS is willing to jettison ALL precedent. Precedent like, you know, reproductive rights.
2/
2) And the "$25k cap" issue in Nev v. Hall raised an old, old Q: to what extent must one state's courts + citizens honor an unfair law passed by another state? If you're thinking that sounds vaguely familiar, you're right: that was the issue in Dred Scott v Sandford.
3/
3/
It's a stretch, but not a huge stretch, to say that the Roberts court just came down on the same side as the author of the worst decision in U.S. history.
This Court scares the bejeezus out of me.
4/4
This Court scares the bejeezus out of me.
4/4
@smp0312 P.S.: Evaluate this new decision in light of the 11th Amdt.: "The Judicial power of the US [ie, federal court jurisdiction] shall not be construed to extend to any suit... commenced or prosecuted against one of the... States by Citizens of another State." This raises two Qs:
6/
6/
@smp0312 Q1: if citizens of one state can't sue another state in federal courts under the Eleventh Amendment, and under this new decision they can't do so in their home state's courts, where CAN they sue? Only in the defendant state's own courts.
7/
7/
@smp0312 In Nevada v Hall, this would have meant California drivers injured by a Nevada state employee on a California highway would have had to sue in Nevada courts, before a Nevada jury. What if the driver were from NY? You'd have to travel from CA to NY to sue. That's nuts.
8/
8/
@smp0312 Q2: As @WilliamBaude + @StephenESachs argued
reason.com/2018/09/18/int…, if the 11A says federal courts have no jurisdiction over suits brought against one State by citizens of another, how did SCOTUS (a federal court) even have jurisdiction to decide this case?
A: they didn't.
9/
reason.com/2018/09/18/int…, if the 11A says federal courts have no jurisdiction over suits brought against one State by citizens of another, how did SCOTUS (a federal court) even have jurisdiction to decide this case?
A: they didn't.
9/
@smp0312 @WilliamBaude @StephenESachs Let's dig even deeper. What if Nevada law provided that its employees simply aren't liable for causing auto accidents, PERIOD (absolute sovereign immunity)?
10/
10/
@smp0312 @WilliamBaude @StephenESachs I wouldn't have much heartburn over that when a NV employee injured NV citizens in NV, because Nevadans can always vote to change their own state's laws. If they want to screw themselves, they can.
But this decision says Californians injured in California are screwed, too.
11/
But this decision says Californians injured in California are screwed, too.
11/
@smp0312 @WilliamBaude @StephenESachs One state shouldn't have the power to limit the rights of citizens of another state. THAT'S why this decision is scarily close to Dred Scott territory: it's a states' rights nightmare, EXPORTED to other states!
12/
12/
@smp0312 @WilliamBaude @StephenESachs And it's not too far removed from this terrifying historical precedent sketched by @Teri_Kanefield (again, ^@smp0312). Ignore the Trump angle; focus on "states can pass whatever laws they want + enforce them on others":
13/
13/
@smp0312 @WilliamBaude @StephenESachs @Teri_Kanefield A decision this bad could only have been written by Clarence Thomas. As always, our past sins are being visited upon us and our children. Karma karmas.
Sigh.
14/
Sigh.
14/
