Kentucky’s SB 257 Ruled Unconstitutional in Interstate Commerce Victory

In the latest update in the years-long fight on behalf of Foresight Coal Sales, Bailey Glasser has secured another win for interstate commerce and constitutional law.

On September 24, 2024, the district court granted Foresight Coal Sales summary judgment, declaring Kentucky’s SB 257 unconstitutional and enjoining the Public Service Commission's commissioners from enforcing the law. This ruling marks a significant victory in Foresight’s long-standing legal battle against a law the district court agreed discriminated against interstate commerce.

This triumph follows years of dedicated litigation led by Bailey Glasser attorneys Joshua Hammack, Nick Johnson, and Chris Smith, who have championed Foresight's case from the outset. In February 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that Foresight’s constitutional claim was likely to succeed, delivering a key victory with a memorable opinion that Kentucky couldn’t “have its cake and eat it, too.”

Kentucky filed a petition for certiorari, arguing the Supreme Court of the United States should take up the case and reverse the Sixth Circuit’s decision. After the Supreme Court ordered Foresight to respond to that petition, Bailey Glasser’s team employed a creative and impactful argument, relying extensively on George Orwell’s Animal Farm to show the flaws in Kentucky’s case. In October 2023, the Supreme Court denied Kentucky’s petition, leaving the Sixth Circuit’s ruling intact and allowing the case to return to the district court.

This team of Bailey Glasser attorneys has been at the forefront of this fight, leading every phase of litigation—from the original complaint to discovery, appellate review, and now summary judgment. This latest decision is a testament to the team's relentless pursuit of justice and constitutional fairness for Foresight. And this decision has far-reaching consequences for the coal industry, and for anyone selling across state lines, because it ensures states cannot extend or deny favorable treatment based on state of origin or similar “proxies” (e.g., state political decisions) that would threaten the unified national market.

To read more about this case visit here.