Supreme Court Will Decide Major "Environmental" Case, Deciding If Leftists May Use the Power of the Lawsuit to Steal Democracy From the Hands of the People

Shawn Fleetwood of The Federalist:

The U.S. Supreme Court will kick off its 2026 term next week with what will be one of its biggest cases of the year. And according to several legal specialists, there's much more to the dispute than meets the eye.

The case in question is Suncor v. Boulder, which deals with the lawfare that Boulder, Colorado, launched against Suncor Energy companies and the Exxon Mobil Corporation. The city is seeking monetary damages based on claims that the oil giants' activities are contributing to "climate change" and that such activities are harming Boulder residents.

Before SCOTUS is the question of whether federal law prevents state-law claims "seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate." The justices will also consider whether they have jurisdiction to hear the case.

During a Tuesday virtual press conference, Alliance for Consumers Executive Director O.H. Skinner said that Democrats and their allies are attempting to make the suit out to be nothing more than a "basic tort case" that is "trying to hold people accountable for their actions." In reality, however, he noted that the lawsuit is effectively "a Swiss Army knife for them to accomplish social change through a court system."

"It's actually bigger than 'climate change,'" Skinner said. "It's about [Democrats'] overall ability to weaponize courts to accomplish policy goals that are sweeping and that are multibillion-dollar in scale, and they could end up with an order that basically rewrites the American economy [if they prevail]."

Should the Supreme Court endorse Boulder's position that states and localities can pursue these types of state-based claims against Suncor and Exxon, the AFC executive director said, such a ruling would open up Pandora's box for leftists to advance similar lawfare against other industries they disfavor. He specifically noted that standard could apply "across all sorts of different social questions, all the way down to guns."

One bad thing is that Alito has recused himself, due to an investment in energy companies.

I don't know why righties recuse themselves. Lefties never do.

Another case will be decided by the Supreme Court: a "landmark" lawsuit against the Muslim government of Dearborn, Michigan making non-Muslims dhimmis.

In Sept. 17, the American Freedom Law Center filed a landmark lawsuit on behalf of a Dearborn, Michigan, resident, alleging that the Arab-majority Detroit suburb, led by Muslim officials, has promoted Islam and discriminated against and fostered hostility towards Christians and Jews -- in violation of the Constitution's establishment clause.

The details of the case brought by my courageous colleague, Federalist Senior Legal Correspondent Margot Cleveland, are shocking. She alleges that Dearborn's leaders have endorsed glitzy Ramadan displays and advertised an iftar dinner with public funds. Conversely, they have allegedly ignored Cleveland's requests for comparable commemorations for Christian and Jewish holidays and sidestepped concerns over public rallies glorifying jihadism. They have also berated a Christian pastor and fellow constituent. Dearborn Mayor Abdullah Hammoud called Pastor Ted Barham a "bigot" and "Islamophobe" who "is not welcome here" when he questioned the city's renaming of a city street for an avowed Hamas and Hezbollah supporter.

The complaint cites past instances where courts have found the city to have discriminated against non-Muslims.

Having petitioned her elected leaders to treat all religions equally, only to face stonewalling, Cleveland has taken them to court in defense of her and her neighbors' sacred rights.

A victory for AFLC could end such discrimination and set a powerful precedent. It would send a message to other like-minded officials nationwide. Cleveland's complaint should also serve as a clarion call for Americans about the potential consequences of Islamization.

Meanwhile:

Have you ever suspected that left-wing Lawsuit Slop Firms work hand-in-glove with left-wing media operations?

James Varney:

Many Americans may be losing trust in journalism, but attorneys at the Clarkson Law Firm are apparently not among them.

In recent years, the Southern California-based firm filed at least four class-action lawsuits in federal courts that appeared to rely heavily on investigative articles published by ProPublica, STAT News, and other news outlets. Most of the suits came on the heels of negative stories about some of the country's biggest health insurers, including UnitedHealth Group, Cigna, and Humana. Facebook's owner, Meta, also seems to have come into Clarkson's crosshairs following a news report about privacy concerns regarding its high-tech eyeglasses.

Clarkson, which advertises itself as a "public interest law firm," was also quick to amend suits by adding plaintiffs that appeared in the articles, most of which alleged insurers were cheating Medicare patients through AI algorithms that denied patients care.

Legal experts say this pattern raises questions because attorneys are generally required to conduct their own inquiries before filing class action suits. News reports are considered hearsay, so filing suits largely based on them is forbidden by the rules of procedure that govern federal courts.

"Relying solely on an article in a newspaper, journal or other publication would not satisfy the class action requirement," said Arthur Landry, a veteran insurance defense attorney in famously litigious Louisiana. "The class actions against the health insurers in question for alleged wrongful denial of claims appear on their face to be based entirely upon publications, and there is no reference in the suits to counsel having attempted to verify the contents of the articles."

"The apparent connections between the publications and the lawsuits, including close time relation between the press coverage and the filing of pleadings, raise serious questions," he told RealClearInvestigations.

While RCI found no evidence that Clarkson and the news outlets coordinated their efforts, the repetitive timeline of stories and lawsuits, stories about the lawsuits, and social media doubling or tripling each gives the appearance of an operation rather than individual efforts, a pattern that has become a modern-day loop used by those looking to influence public policy not just on health care but other major issues such as artificial intelligence, global warming and the like. When the work of nonprofits, academic researchers, and other groups that share the same public policy goal is added, there is a cascade effect that makes their position more formidable.

One of the most striking examples of this dynamic started on March 13, 2023. That day, STAT News, a respected online outlet that focuses on healthcare and is available only with a subscription, published the first in a series of articles on alleged attempts by UnitedHealth to deny coverage, expensive hospital visits, and the like to its Medicare Advantage patients.

Eight months later, on Nov. 14, 2023, STAT published another article in the series, which would become a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in investigative reporting, reporting that a UnitedHealth subsidiary, NaviHealth, used an AI algorithm to try to shorten patients' rehabilitation stays to boost profits.

On that same day, Clarkson filed a lawsuit against UnitedHealth that largely recounts the March and November stories. The lawsuit footnotes the STAT articles eight times in the 45-page filing. Two of the footnotes refer to the STAT story published that same day in November.

The lawsuit also repeats language in the Nov. 14 article. One paragraph in the Nov. 14 lawsuit involves an allegation STAT published that day, namely that NaviHealth "set a target for 2023 to keep rehab stays within 1 percent of the days projected by the algorithm," thereby turning something reported that day into a pleaded factual allegation.

The lawsuit also appears to have cribbed language from STAT's March article. STAT's claim that company algorithms "compare a patient's diagnosis, age, living situation, and physical function... in a database of six million patients" and that they were used "to pinpoint the precise moment when they can plausibly cut off payment" are repeated verbatim in Clarkson's filing.

Later in the complaint, Clarkson alleges the algorithm's "generic recommendations fail to adjust for a patient's individual circumstances and conflict with basic rules on what Medicare Advantage plans must cover," the exact language STAT used in March.

STAT did not respond to RCI's questions about whether they were in contact as the articles were being prepared, and Clarkson declined comment. STAT's investigative pieces do not mention Clarkson.

After the lawsuit was filed, STAT published -- again on Nov. 14, 2023 -- a story boasting its work had been the basis for the litigation, and all parties trumpeted their work on social media posts, thereby achieving the cascade effect and creating a public relations crisis for UnitedHealth.

More on the Democrat Media Party's coordinated lawfare/"journalism" scam at the link.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 01:10 PM

| Access Comments