There are two very important cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, one that will affect the nation and one our beloved Louisiana, especially.
The first involves litigation of the transgender delusion, whether biological boys should be able to compete against biological girls in sports. The second involves damaging the Louisiana oil and gas industry in such a way that the major oil companies start looking at other states to move to, to do business. I will take them in that order.
Let’s begin with a premise so basic that to even state it seems ludicrous: boys and girls, males and females, are, biologically and physiologically, very different. Boys and men are generally taller, faster, stronger, and heavier than women. In fact, the typical range of physical traits between males and females differs so widely that allowing males to compete in women’s athletics will unavoidably expose females to a much greater risk of physical injury.
So, the question is this: does a biological boy who “transitions” to become a girl have a constitutional right to compete in girls’ sports?
I was intrigued by the questioning that took place. For purposes of determining whether there has been a violation of Equal Protection, Justice Samuel Alito asked the lead attorney for the transgender man/woman, “what does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman”? In other words, Alito continued, “how can a court determine whether there is discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means”?
The attorney responded, “we do not have a definition for the Court.” We do not have a definition of what it means to be a man or a woman! That’s astounding.
Let me close my analysis of this case by urging an unassailable truth. Equal protection means treating similarly situated people, similarly. However, male and female athletes are not, from a physical or biological standpoint, similarly situated, and never will be. And to ignore biological facts and reject science is to impose a brutal and unfair regime upon women and girls and to endorse blatant misogyny.
The second case directly impacts one of Louisiana’s most important industries, oil and gas. The case is Chevron USA v. Plaquemines Parish, and it boils down to federal and state jurisdiction: whether a lawsuit should be brought in a federal or state court and the answer to that question makes a huge difference.
The brief factual history is that Plaquemines Parish, and other coastal parishes in Louisiana, are suing Chevron—and this is important—for producing aviation fuel for the U.S. military during World War II. In short, the plaintiffs have alleged that the drilling by these oil companies in the 1940s led to coastal erosion and damaged wetlands. They are seeking billions of dollars in damages.
However, experts have noted that while land erosion is a serious problem in Louisiana—because it increases the likelihood of flooding, the main cause of it is hurricanes and geography, not oil and gas drilling. In the first trial, and if this jury verdict stands there will be many others, a local Plaquemines Parish jury awarded $740 million in damages. So, the question of jurisdiction, whether these lawsuits belong in state or federal court, is a critically important one.
Chevron argues that the lawsuit belongs in federal court because the oil drilling it did in the 1940s fulfilled a federal contract. This is a strong argument. As the Wall Street Journal has observed, “the stakes in this case go beyond oil drilling to bedrock federalism principles. States have constitutional powers, but they don’t include legal harassment of companies or agencies doing their federal duty.”
If the Supreme Court does not rule in favor of allowing these oil companies to fairly litigate these lawsuits in federal court, the decision will, I fear, effectively drive the oil and gas industry—which is on the cusp of exploding under the Trump Administration’s declaration of an ‘energy emergency’—out of Louisiana.
I look forward to what I hope will be good, correct and just rulings in both cases. That, 1) transgenderism is the worst example of toxic male misogyny, and, 2) the principle that an American oil company that provided critical support through energy exploration and production to the World War II war effort, in patriotic response to the request of the federal government, be provided due process and fairness in our legal system.
Shreveport attorney, Royal Alexander, worked in D.C. in the U.S. House of Representatives for nearly 8 years for two different Members of Congress from Louisiana.