A Question inspired by Texas Attorney Generals petition to the Supremes.....For the lawyers here?

[The empressof all]

I live in a state with fairly stringent guidelines for Covid Safety. Masks are required in all indoor public spaces and retail establishments are prohibited from having more than a certain number of patrons. As a result we have one of the lower numbers of reported cases of Corona. The neighboring state has no such regulations and has an extremely high covid reporting rate.

Since all state borders are open and citizens can and do move freely around the country...Can those states with mask requirements then sue the states without requirements then as they are placing our citizens at risk. In addition their citizens are using some of our precious hospital and medical resources as their hospitals are filling up and patients are being moved across borders. (No, I don't want to deprive a sick person of a hospital bed because of their address.....It's a hypothetical question)

[PoliticAverse]

1. "Since all state borders are open" - actually they aren't. California has border protection stations

that screen people entering the state (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Border_Protection_Stations )

In the 1986 case Maine v. Taylor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state can – through statute law – regulate interstate commerce in order to serve "a legitimate local purpose that could not adequately be served by available nondiscriminatory alternatives" that would otherwise comply with the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

[Retrograde]

3. Those were set up to check produce

Botanically, California is an island surrounded on all sides by ocean, mountains, or deserts. The agricultural inspection stations are there to help prevent plant pests from entering the state, which could have a bad effect on one of our biggest industries, agriculture. Unless they've repurposed them (I haven't been outside of the state in 2020) they aren't equipped to check people.

And then there are all those who fly in - no inspection there!

[NameAlreadyTaken]

6. But those are for agricultural inspections,

and are not enforced much. Most of the time they just wave you through. There are only 16 of the stations and many other possible points of entry into California that don't involve goung through a station.

[dware]

9. Yes they do.

I frequently travel south on I-15 and I have to stop at one between Baker and Barstow and show them my manifest, a couple of times I've had CHP wave me to the truck inspection lane and do a Level III inspection, which I passed with flying colors.

[LeftInTX]

10. All states have these agriculture restrictions

[hlthe2b]

2. In reality, SCOTUS has only entertained these suits for delineation of borders, water rights and

similar issues that can ONLY be settled on a Federal level by the highest court. That is why they unceremoniously shot down Nebraska and Oklahoma's attempt (with Wyoming waiting in the wings) to sue Colorado over its liberal marijuana laws that they claimed adversely impacted them. There was never the intention to allow direct-to-SCOTUS lawsuits for issues that can (and HAVE) already been settled in state courts.

So, no. SCOTUS is not about to open up that door.

[skip fox]

4. All three of the first three responses were very helpful

and have helped me to breath.

[Gothmog]

5. This is parody but supports the idea that this lawsuit is dumb

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

7. How the Supreme Court Can Swiftly Dispose of the Texas Lawsuit Seeking to Overturn the Election

The poster on the Volko website are conservative but are bright https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/09/how-the-supreme-court-can-swiftly-dispose-of-the-texas-lawsuit-seeking-to-overturn-the-election/

However, because this case is a lawsuit filed by one state against others, it falls within the Court's "original jurisdiction"—the narrow set of cases that can be filed directly in the Supreme Court, without first being considered by lower courts. Therefore, the justices may not be able to reject it in the same way as they just refused to hear a GOP lawsuit seeking to overturn the result in Pennsylvania.

At the same time, however, there is precedent for the Court dispensing with state vs. state original jurisdiction lawsuits without a full hearing or opinion. In 2016, that's exactly what the Court did with a lawsuit filed by Nebraska and Oklahoma seeking to force neighboring Colorado to rescind its legislation legalizing marijuana under state law. The justices disposed of the Nebraska-Oklahoma lawsuit in a one-sentence order. Here it is in all its glory:

The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied.

Nothing prevents the Supreme Court from doing the same thing with the Texas case (which some other red states might sign on to). Like the Texas case, the Nebraska-Oklahoma lawsuit had no real merit and was roundly denounced by legal commentators across the political spectrum. I summarized its weaknesses and linked to critiques by others here. The justices apparently concluded it wasn't worthy of the Court's full attention, and acted accordingly.

[UTUSN]

8. From these lips to Zeus's ear - I'm nervous about it even with all the experts saying it's nothing

[NoMoreRepugs]

11. Am I correct in thinking that this lawsuit would invalidate elections and make the RePutinican

Party the only valid party in America??