Expanded argument on Exxon Valdez
The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to expand the time allowed for oral argument in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (07-219), scheduled for Wednesday, Feb. 27. That is the only case scheduled to be heard that day. In an order Friday, the Court allotted 45 minutes to each side — 15 minutes beyond the usual half-hour each. The Court refused a request by the state of Alaska to take part in oral argument. The case involves Exxon’s challenge to the $2.5 billion punitive damages verdict awarded to businesses and individuals for damages done by the massive oil spill from the tanker, Exxon Valdez, in Alaska’s Prince William Sound on March 24, 1989.
Friday’s orders can be found here.
In another order Friday, the Court agreed to allow the U.S. Solicitor General to take part in the argument scheduled Tuesday, Feb. 26, in Allison Engine Co., et al., v. U.S. ex rel. Sanders (07-214), on the proof required to show that a false claim was made to the federal government. The issue is whether it is sufficient to show that the claim would be paid with government funds, even if the claim was not directly submitted to a federal agency or official. The Solicitor General, siding with the respondents, contends that the False Claims Act does not require proof that a false claim was presented to a federal official.
The Court also allowed attorneys for a television performer, Alex E. Ferrer, who appears as “Judge Alex,” to file a post-argument brief in Preston v. Ferrer (06-1463). The case tests when federal arbitration law bars states from nullifying an arbitration agreement under state law. The case was heard on Jan. 14. During oral argument, several questions arose over the scope of California law. The new brief put before the Court a ruling by the California Supreme Court on Jan. 28 interpreting the state law governing talent agencies.
With 35 states signed on as amici for the respondents in the Exxon valdez case, it comes to mind that with a 50 state union it would only take 33 states to apply to congress for a constitutional amendment, and 38 to ratify. Exxon’s request to fashion tort law specific to them and theirs is hubris of the highest degree, as is attested to by the reaction of the 35 states. I am looking forward to the extended oral arguments; it will be fun. Full disclosure: I am a plaintiff in this case that has been waiting around for 19 years. I’m overjoyed that this legal trauma will finally come to a close. Hopefully the Supreme Court will affirm the lower court and clean up the lower courts’ conflicted interpretation of admiralty law, and apparently the fairly direct and obvious language in the Clean Water Act.
Comment by Chris Berns — February 15, 2008 @ 9:21 pm