Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt

Um, we've talked about this court's cases on interstate pollution, but let me provide, I think, a very concrete grounding for each of the constitutional principles we've been discussing.

The equal sovereignty principle, I would point to Justice Thomas's opinion for the court in Franchise Tax Board versus Hyatt, which I think established three very important premises for the argument.

There, the court stated that the equal sovereignty of each state, uh, imposed, i- implied certain limitations on the sovereignty of other states.

Second, that there were certain areas involving conflicting rights where states could not supply the applicable rule of decision.

Champion, um, my clock is ticking, so I wanna know the answer to my question.

My question is, what's the support for what, for the no state, for the, the, the default rule about air and water regulation?

So I think that, uh, Hyatt establishes the premise for this mode of constitutional interpretation, and the cases that applied federal common law before the enactment of the Clean Air Act apply that principle in the context of interstate pollution.

And if I could point you to any cases from this court, the two I would select are Missouri versus Illinois and Georgia versus Tennessee Copper, two decisions written by Justice Holmes within two years of each other that talk about the fact that states no longer have the right to abate forcible nuisances.

We've talked about this Court's cases on interstate pollution, but let me provide, I think, a very concrete grounding for each of the constitutional principles we've been discussing.

The equal sovereignty principle, I would point to Justice Thomas' opinion for the Court in Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt, which I think established three very important premises for the argument.

There, the Court stated that that the equal sovereignty of each state implied certain limitations on the sovereignty of other states.

Second, that there were certain areas involving conflicting rights where states could not supply the applicable rule of decision.

So I want to know the answer to my question.

My question is, what's the support for the interstate? no state for the default rule about air and water regulation.

So I think that Hyatt establishes the premise for this mode of constitutional interpretation, and the cases that applied federal common law before the enactment of the Clean Air Act apply that principle in the context of interstate pollution.

And if I could point you to any cases from this Court, the two I would select are Missouri v. Illinois and Georgia v. Tennessee Copper, two decisions written by Justice Holmes within two years of each other that talk about the fact that states no longer have the right to abate forcible nuisances.

Um, we've talked about this court's cases on interstate pollution, but let me provide, I think, a very concrete grounding for each of the constitutional principles we've been discussing.

The equal sovereignty principle, I would point to Justice Thomas's opinion for the court in Franchise Tax Board versus Hyatt, which I think established three very important premises for the argument.

There, the court stated that the equal sovereignty of each state i- imposed, implied certain limitations on the sovereignty of other states.

Second, that there were certain areas involving conflicting rights where states could not supply the applicable rule of decision.

compacts.The answer to my question.

My question is, what's the support for what, for the no state, for the, the, the default rule about air and water regulation?

So I think that, uh, Hyatt establishes the premise for this mode of constitutional interpretation, and the cases that applied federal common law before the enactment of the Clean Air Act apply that principle in the context of interstate pollution.

And if I could point you to any cases from this court, the two I would select are Missouri versus Illinois and Georgia versus Tennessee Copper, two decisions written by Justice Holmes within two years of each other, that talk about the fact that states no longer have the right to abate forcible nuisances.