California strikes back. Oregon could as well.
Anything Texas can do California can do.
Oregon, too.
How about Oregon allow private party lawsuits of coal miners?
Texas created a law which effectively voids a Constitutional right. Texas created a private right to sue in state courts and collect $10,000, plus attorney fees, from anyone performing or "abetting" an abortion of a fetus of 6 weeks or older. The Texas legal strategy meant that the state of Texas didn't ban abortions; they just made doing them financially catastrophic. The political strategy was to target abortion providers, but not the woman seeking the abortion, potentially a sympathetic victim.
The Court let the law stand because a majority of the Justices liked the outcome, stopping abortions. It is a dangerous precedent because it opens the door to other states making their own Constitutional carve-outs.
California Governor Gavin Newsom just announced that California is starting work on a law identical to the Texas law, targeting AR15-type rifles instead of abortions. They won't allow private party lawsuits against gun owners, only the less sympathetic and deeper-pocketed gun manufacturers and sellers. This time the Court won't like the result--lawsuits against the gun industry. This forces the hand of the Court. Newsom tweeted:
SCOTUS is letting private citizens in Texas sue to stop abortion?! If that’s the precedent, then we’ll let Californians sue those who put ghost guns and assault weapons on our streets. If TX can ban abortion and endanger lives, CA can ban deadly weapons of war and save lives.
His communications office published this:
The Court's legitimacy comes from its reputation for integrity and neutrality. Circumstances allowed Trump to appoint three Justices who changed the makeup of the Court. The Justices are fully understood to have been appointed to fulfill the political agenda of reducing or ending abortion. They were also appointed to fulfill the political agenda of preserving or expanding gun rights. That is why California creates a dilemma for the Court.
The Supreme Court may act faster to disallow the Texas suit strategy if they perceived there is a bandwagon underway. Action by Oregon would change the narrative from California tit-for-tat into one of an idea going viral.
Oregon can target coal. Oregon has a Democratic governor and a legislative super-majority of Democrats all of whom understand climate change to be a major problem. The Oregon legislature likely has the votes to copy the Texas and California strategy exactly, and allow private right of action to sue in Oregon courts and collect $10,000 from any manufacturer of coal burned as fuel that enters the state of Oregon. They could declare coal to be a hazard to air quality and public health. The only coal-fired electrical generation in Oregon ended in October, 2020, and there is no commercial coal mining in the state. https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=OR
Doesn't the Constitution's Commerce Clause, giving Congress sole power to regulate interstate commerce, make such an Oregon law impossible? Yes, of course, IF it were Oregon law banning coal. Instead this uses the Texas strategy of Constitutional circumvention.
Realistically, this is just a gesture, something to float into the news cycle as a credible threat, given the politics of Oregon. It need only require the governor, some candidate for governor, or some legislator to make a public request of Oregon's Attorney General for an opinion on whether such a law is possible, and to request one be drafted. That would be the news story:
"Oregon explores using Texas strategy to sue coal companies to protect Oregon environment."
Oregon would be sending a body-language-type message to the Supreme Court that their decision to let the Texas abortion law stand risks Texas-style laws from state-specific interests. Such an inquiry would also be a multi-pronged body-language message from whoever makes the public inquiry. It positions that person as someone concerned about both climate and abortion rights, and that the person wants actions, not words. We call the Texas bluff. It is a performance, to show that person is comfortable with the national attention this would draw, and that Oregon need not be me-too of California.
I suspect it is a low-risk-high-reward action for a Democratic officeholder or candidate. Environmentalists and abortion rights advocates would enjoy seeing the fighting spirit and the direct action against Texas's law. I am aware of no Oregon constituency who cares much about out-of-state coal miners. Whoever proposes this need not defend implementing an unconstitutional law--and should not. Admit right out that it has an unconstitutional effect. That is the point. He or she need only defend taking action to protect the environment and put a spotlight on the Supreme Court's constitutional abuse of the rights of women. That is a pretty safe place to be for an Oregon Democrat.