,
10 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ Art. III, Sec. 2 provides "[i]n all Cases . . . in which a State shall be [a] Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction." Does the text of the Constitution grant #SCOTUS the discretion to decline jurisdiction of a case in which "a State shall be [a] Party"?
2/ In Nebraska v. Colorado, Justices Thomas and Alito said #SCOTUS could not decline to exercise jurisdiction in a suit between two states. Federal law provides that #SCOTUS has "exclusive" jurisdiction over such suits.
supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf…
supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf…
3/ Thomas and Alito also noted that #SCOTUS has declined to exercise jurisdiction where only one state is a party. They would reconsider this doctrine.
4/ The Arizona AG (@GeneralBrnovich), @ConMcPLLC, and @tdlenk have sought leave to file a bill of complaint in #SCOTUS original jurisdiction. They sued Purdue Pharmaceutical and members of the Sackler family. The case concerns the opioid crisis. documentcloud.org/dochttps://www…
5/ The brief argues that jurisdiction is mandatory, not discretionary. The Court's precedents stating otherwise should be overruled. "No principle of stare decisis warrants a different result." Alternatively, the Court should grant leave.
6/ Whenever I teach Article III, students look at the text and ask me how the Court can decline jurisdiction when a case involves a state. I don't have a good answer. I hope this case provides a resolution.
7/ NE v. CO was decided in March 2016 after J. Scalia passed away. I suspect he would have joined. I also suspect Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are on board. That gets us to 4 votes. (Or does granting leave require 5?)
8/ If #SCOTUS entertained original jurisdiction from cases filed by state AGs, much of the strategic litigation we see could bypass lower-court litigation. In other words, no need to file suit in 6 courts to obtain multiple nationwide injunctions. Cut right to the chase.
@adamliptak 10/ Corrected link below. Thanks @GeneralBrnovich
