The United States Supreme Court has announced it will hear two pivotal cases in its 2025-2026 term, addressing fundamental jurisdictional questions about whether disputes should be litigated in federal or state courts. These cases touch on significant issues ranging from abortion-related services to historic oil production, reflecting the Court’s continuing role in shaping the judicial landscape.
One of the cases, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, involves a contentious dispute between crisis pregnancy centers and the state of New Jersey. The centers, religiously-affiliated nonprofits that offer support to pregnant women while advocating against abortion, are challenging the state’s authority to issue subpoenas without allowing federal court intervention. This case arose after New Jersey’s Division of Consumer Affairs began investigating First Choice for potentially misleading practices, including allegedly omitting information about their mission and the requirements for ultrasounds before medication abortions.
In response to a November 2023 subpoena from the state, First Choice sought federal court intervention, citing First Amendment concerns. However, their claims were dismissed by the district court for not being “ripe,” as the state court had not yet enforced the subpoena under threat of contempt. The decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. Now, after months of deliberation, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, raising important questions about the intersection of state enforcement power and federal jurisdiction.
The second case on the docket, Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, La., originates from Louisiana. In this case, Louisiana and two of its parishes seek to hold oil companies accountable for crude oil production dating back to World War II. The legal question primarily revolves around the removal of cases from state courts to federal courts, based on a federal statute that permits such action related to any act performed under an officer of the United States. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit previously ruled against the oil companies’ efforts to shift jurisdiction, finding their arguments unconvincing. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case will test the boundaries of the federal removal provision and could set new precedents for similar jurisdictional disputes.
The docket additions underscore the Court’s role in navigating complex jurisdictional controversies. As the term progresses, legal professionals and observers across the nation will be keenly observing the Court’s decisions, which will undoubtedly influence federal and state interaction in the judiciary for years to come. For more detailed information on the cases, you can read the full article on SCOTUSblog.