Petitions of the week

Issues: (1) Whether imposing massive and retroactive “public nuisance” liability without requiring proof that the defendant’s nearly century-old conduct caused any individual plaintiff any injury violates the due process clause; and (2) whether retroactively imposing massive liability based on a defendant’s nearly century-old promotion of its then-lawful products without requiring proof of reliance thereon or injury therefrom violates the First Amendment.

Issues: (1) Whether, in conflict with decisions of the Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, the First Amendment permits California to impose tort liability for truthfully promoting a lawful product that it finds to be hazardous in some uses; and (2) whether the due process clause allows a state to impose retroactive and grossly disproportionate public nuisance liability to inspect and abate millions of residences based on decades-old promotions without evidence that consumers relied on those promotions or that petitioner’s lead paint is in any residence.

Issues: (1) Whether a state anti-SLAPP provision requiring an award of attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing defendant applies in federal court as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 9th Circuits have concluded, in conflict with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 10th and District of Columbia Circuits; and (2) whether a state anti-SLAPP provision requiring expedited disposition of dismissal motions applies in federal court as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st and 5th Circuits have held, in conflict with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 10th and District of Columbia Circuits.

Issue: Whether the 21st Amendment empowers states, consistent with the dormant commerce clause, to regulate liquor sales by granting retail or wholesale licenses only to individuals or entitles that have resided in-state for a specified time.