Montana v. Washington

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Montana and Wyoming’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint that asserted that the State of Washington denied access to its ports for shipments of Montana and Wyoming’s coal in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause and the Foreign Commerce Clause. Justices Thomas and Alito would have granted the motion.

The Acting Solicitor General filed a brief in the Supreme Court expressing the United States’ view that the Court should deny Montana and Wyoming’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of Washington for allegedly unconstitutional actions blocking export of coal mined in Montana and Wyoming from Washington ports. The U.S. contended that because the developer of the proposed coal export terminal at issue in the case had filed for bankruptcy and would not be building the terminal, this proceeding would not redress Montana and Wyoming’s asserted injury and there was therefore no Article III case or controversy.

The Trump administration’s Acting Solicitor General did not file a brief in response to the Supreme Court’s invitation to express the views of the United States on Montana and Washington’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint asserting that the State of Washington unconstitutionally denied access to its ports for shipments of coal from Montana and Wyoming. The two states contended that Washington’s denial of a water quality certification for a terminal violated the Dormant Commerce Clause and the Foreign Commerce Clause. The case was distributed for the conference on September 29, 2020, and on October 5, the Court invited the Acting Solicitor General to file a brief.