Supreme Court declines to intervene in Maryland gun licensing and Hawaii Climate Change suits
SCOTUS NEWS
The Supreme Court declined to hear Monday a challenge to Maryland’s handgun licensing system, as well as two cases seeking to hold oil companies responsible for damages caused by climate changes. The announcement was made as part of the list of orders from the justices private conference on Friday. The justices denied review of Maryland Shall Issue, in which gun rights groups and gun owners challenged Maryland’s requirement that residents obtain a permit before purchasing a firearm. The U.S. Court of Appeals 4th Circuit upheld this law last year. The court will consider the petition in Snope v. Brown again on Friday, Jan. 17. The court will review the petition in Snope V. Brown on Friday, January 17.
The Justices also denied a review in Sunoco and Shell v. Honolulu. Both cases sought to hold oil and gasoline companies responsible for their increased fossil fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and property damage caused by climate change in Honolulu. Elizabeth Prelogar, the Solicitor-General, urged the justices not to review. Prelogar told the justices that (among other things) at this time the Supreme Court lacks the power to review the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision allowing the lawsuit to go forward.
Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the Honolulu cases. The court asked the federal government for its views in four new cases:
The court asked the federal government for its views in four new cases:
Fiehler v. Mecklenburg, a dispute over land ownership in Alaska that hinges on whether a state court has the power to correct a federal surveyor’s location of a water boundary.
Borochov v. Iran, in which the justices have been asked to decide whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s “terrorism exception” to the general rule of immunity for foreign governments in U.S. courts gives U.S. courts the power to hear claims that arise from a foreign state’s material support for a terrorist attack that injures or disables, but does not kill, its victims.
FS Credit Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, involving whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act, which regulates investment companies like mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, creates a private right of action.
Port of Tacoma v. Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, in which the justices have been asked to decide whether a provision of the Clean Water Act allows private citizens to go to federal court to enforce state-issued pollutant-discharge permits that impose more stringent standards than the act requires.
This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.
