The U.S. Supreme Court convened Monday, Oct. 3 to begin its 2022-23 term. State policymakers are gearing up to hear several cases in which states are participants. In the coming weeks, CSG will provide further analyses of these and other disputes as they come before the court.
Case: Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin
Background: MoneyGram Payment Systems is a national company incorporated in Delaware. The company markets what it calls “official checks” that can be used in financial transactions. Customers pay for the amount of the checks, plus a transaction fee. In 2016, MoneyGram gave unclaimed checks to the government of Delaware.
Legal Issue: The federal Disposition of Abandoned Money Orders and Traveler’s Checks Act requires that “…a money order, traveler’s check, or other similar written instrument (other than a third party bank check)…” that goes unclaimed is the property of the state in which the check was purchased. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin argue the checks are covered by the federal act so unclaimed checks purchased in their states are their property. MoneyGram and Delaware argue the checks at issue are “third party” checks and are Delaware property, according to state law. As much as $150 million in unclaimed checks is at stake. Are the checks subject to federal law?
State Participation: Twenty-seven states have joined Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as parties in the case.
Case: Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Background: Robert Mallory sued Norfolk Railway Company in Pennsylvania state court, claiming that he contracted cancer because he was exposed to toxic chemicals as an employee of the company. The company is headquartered in Virginia, but is registered to do business in Pennsylvania. Mallory is not a Pennsylvania resident and he does not allege his injury occurred in the state.
Legal Issue: Does a company consent to be accountable to a state court system when the company registers to do business in the state?
State Participation: Eight states have filed a legal brief supporting the company.
Case: Moore v. Harper
Background: The North Carolina state legislature adopted a new map for its federal congressional districts in November 2021. A group of officeholders and private organizations and individuals filed suit, claiming the map was a partisan gerrymander in violation of the state constitution. The North Carolina Supreme Court blocked the state from using the map and order the original trial court to adopt a new map. The trial court then adopted a map created by three people appointed by the court. The state legislature filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting the original map be reinstated. The court declined to do so, but agreed to hear the case. The trial court-approved map is in place for the 2022 election cycle.
Legal Issue: The U.S. Constitution states: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature.”The state legislature asserts this clause gives the branch exclusive authority on the drawing of maps. North Carolina state law says that state courts can hear “[a]ny action challenging the validity of any act of the General Assembly that apportions or redistricts State legislative or congressional districts.” Do state courts have a legal role to play in disputes over redistricting?
State Participation: Thirteen states have filed a legal brief supporting the North Carolina legislature.
Case: Merrill v. Milligan
Background: In 2021, the Alabama legislature designed the districts for the state’s seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. A group of private citizens sued, claiming the map is drawn to reduce the influence of Black voters in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act. A federal district court sided with the plaintiffs and ordered the map be redrawn. In February 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court put the district court’s order on hold and agreed to hear the case. The state legislature’s original map is in place for the 2022 election cycle.
Legal Issue: Does the legislative map violate the Voting Rights Act?
State Participation: Fourteen states have filed a legal brief supporting the Alabama legislature.
Case: National Pork Producers Council v. Ross
Background: In 2018, California voters approved a law that prohibits the sale of pork from pigs confined in ways that are inconsistent with California state regulations. The council sued, arguing that the California decision discriminates against pork producers in other states, where regulations on animal treatment differ.
Legal Issue: The U.S. Constitution states: “Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states.” Does the Constitution prohibit a state from passing laws that have a discriminatory economic impact in other states?
State Participation: Twenty-six states have filed a legal brief supporting the council. Fourteen states have filed a legal brief supporting California.
Case: Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency
Background: The Sacketts (private citizens) have been prevented from building a home in Idaho because the Environmental Protection Agency raised concerns about the impact of construction on wetlands on the property.
Legal Issue: The federal Clean Water Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate pollutants dumped into “navigable waters.” Neither the act nor the Supreme Court have clearly defined the term, leaving it to the EPA to determine the scope of its authority. The Sacketts argue that the EPA is abusing its power under the act. Are wetlands subject to EPA authority under the Clean Water Act?
State Participation: Twenty-six states collectively and Alaska individually have written a legal brief supporting the Sacketts. Seventeen states and Washington D.C. collectively and Colorado individually have filed legal briefs supporting the EPA.
Case: U.S. v. Texas
Background: In September 2021, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a memo prioritizing the deportation of three groups of undocumented individuals: suspected terrorists, people who have committed serious crimes and people caught at the border. Texas and Louisiana sued the federal government, claiming that the Biden administration was selectively enforcing federal immigration law in violation of federal administrative requirements. A district court blocked the administration from enforcing the new policy. The administration requested the U.S. Supreme Court intervene and lift the district court order. The Supreme Court declined to do so but agreed to hear the case.
Legal Issue: Does the Department of Homeland Security have discretion to prioritize particular individuals and groups in the application of federal immigration law? State Participation: Nineteen states filed a legal brief supporting Texas and Louisiana. Sixteen state and Washington D.C. and 21 local government entities filed a legal brief supporting the Department of Homeland Security.