In all the analysis about how conservative or mixed in ideology the Supreme Court has become, there's been little comment on the reality that in almost every case where corporations challenged state regulations or taxing powers this term, the corporations won and state power lost. "This has been a very successful year for the business community," said Miguel Estrada, who represents many key corporate interests before courts in Washington, D.C."

In almost every Supreme Court decision decided this term, state regulation lost out against business claims of federal preemption of state powers. The list and effects on consumer protection, labor rights and state budgets went on and on (for analysis go to the flip):

Consumers Lose in Medical Device Liability Case: As Progressive States highlighted in February, Riegel v. Medtronic is potentially one of the most dangerous decisions undercutting state consumer protection laws in decades.  Essentially, the court declared that once the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves a medical device, however careless or politicized the decision, the companies are then immune to lawsuits under state consumer protection laws authorized by the 1976 Medical Device Amendments.  What made this decision especially appalling is that sponsors of that federal law, such as Sen. Edward Kennedy, point out that no such preemption of state law was ever intended, so the Supreme Court created this attack on state powers completely on its own authority.  Legislation to reverse this decision has already been introduced into Congress.

Making the decision especially dangerous is its likely expansion to consumer suits over defective prescription drugs.  A decision on that exact issue, Warner-Lambert v. Kent, deadlocked 4-4 only because Chief Justice Roberts recused himself because of substantial stock holdings in the drug company involved in the suit.  There is the likelihood, though, of Roberts be a deciding vote next term in a similar case about state consumer laws.

Court Compels States to Fund Union Busting by Government Contractors:  In one of the most anti-labor decisions in decades, and one of the most bizarre ones, the Supreme Court in Chamber of Commerce v. Brown struck down a California law that prevented government contractors from diverting money meant for health care or other public services to paying union-busting lawyers.  Many federal laws, including Head Start and the Workforce Investment Act, prohibit use of federal money for anti-union activities, so it is especially odd that states are helpless to stop public money from being misused for anti-union purposes when the federal government reserves the right to prevent such misuse of its own funds.   Despite claims that federal labor law preempts the California law, as Justice Breyer wrote in dissent, legislatures have "broad authority to decide how to spend the People's money." If Californians do not want their tax money used to block unionization, "why should they be conscripted into paying?"
Beyond these two blockbuster decisions, corporate interests won in a series of other cases:

• States Can't Stop Mail Order Cigarette Sales to Minors:  In Rowe v. NH Motor Transport Association, the Court found that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 preempts a Maine statute requiring tobacco shippers to use delivery companies that verify the age of the customer.
• Arbitration Clauses Void Right to State Administrative Appeals:  In its ongoing gutting of state labor laws, the Court declared in Preston v. Ferrer that a California state law requiring an administrative hearing in talent agency disputes was overridden by the Federal Arbitration Act if an arbitration clause had been signed.
• Corporations Win Tax Rulings Against States: In both CSX v. GA Board of Equalization and Meadwestvaco v. Illinois Department of Revenue, state methodologies for taxing the corporation plaintiffs were struck down as preempted by federal law or constitutional rules, in each case likely handing the plaintiff companies a large tax decrease.
  
• Punitive Damages Owed by Corporations Slashed: While focusing on federal maritime law in its details, numerous legal experts expect the Court's Exxon v. Baker decision - which slashed punitive damages owed to the Alaskan victims of Exxon's Valdez oil spill to no more than actual damages - will spill over into state courts, the primary venue for punitive damages against companies.
  

The one major corporate case involving state regulation that had even a mixed result was Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1, which made a strongly pro-corporate legal argument that predatory utility contracts will generally be upheld no matter how unreasonable the rates for consumers, but that in the narrow case of unlawful manipulation of the power market, there might be cause for overturning the power contract.

The Need for Justices Who Respect Collaborative Federalism:

Two things are increasingly clear looking at the trends at the Supreme Court.  First, there is almost no consistency in doctrine in regard to federalism and respect for state authority, other than a nearly complete tilt towards business interests trumping state authority.  Secondly, this bias towards sacrificing state regulatory power in favor of business interests is not limited to the rightwing bloc of Justices, who are in too many cases joined by some if not all of the "liberal" Justices.  The liberal Justices may define themselves in opposition to the conservative justices on issues like voting rights and criminal justice issues, but they unfortunately lack any consistency in standing up for state regulations trying to rein in corporate excesses. 

As we look towards a new Presidential administration that may well appoint two or even three Justices in the next few years, state leaders should be raising their voices to demand appointees to the Supreme Court who understand that the federal system is a collaborative one where states' role in protecting consumer interests and reining in corporate abuses should be respected.

BTW-- for a longer listing on how the non-business cases at the Supreme Court effected state government power, see the whole Progressive States Network session roundup today.  A fun fact on the Heller gun rights case, it's not even clear, since this case was about a District of Columbia law and thus implicates only 2nd Amendment rights versus federal authority, that state gun laws will be restricted at all under the doctrine, a point Justice Scalia made in a footnote where he noted that a number of past Supreme Court cases had "reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government."