Kentucky Utility Tax Law Sparks Electric Controversy in U.S. Supreme Court

149
SHARE

However, Illinois-based Foresight Coal Sales LLC countered this argument fiercely. They asserted that the law’s bias was as clear as daylight, blatantly flouting the dormant commerce clause.

To paint a picture, Joshua Hammack from Bailey & Glasser LLP, who represented Foresight, expressed, “S.B. 257 tried to give Kentucky coal producers an artificial leg-up, making them seem competitively priced when reality said otherwise.”

 A Look Back at Previous Rulings

This latest Supreme Court’s hands-off approach isn’t the first of its kind. Just months prior, they addressed a similar dormant commerce clause dispute. That time, they endorsed a California mandate prohibiting the in-state sale of pork derived from sows kept in constricted housing. This echoes the court’s continuous emphasis on maintaining a level playing field for interstate commerce.

Who’s Who in the Legal Drama

Representing the KPSC, we have Matthew Franklin Kuhn from the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office. On the flip side, championing the cause of Foresight Coal Sales LLC are Joshua I. Hammack and Nicholas S. Johnson of Bailey & Glasser LLP.