[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-298607-105":59,"doc-detail-298607-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","californias-brief-in-opposition-brief-answering-january-27-2026","California’s Brief in Opposition - Brief - Answering January 27, 2026","","California’s Brief in Opposition filed with the Supreme Court of the United States presents the State of California’s response to claims brought by Florida and supported by related federal and California authorities. The document sets out an introduction, statement, and argument, including sections addressing why Florida does not meet the demanding standard for invoking original jurisdiction and why Florida’s proposed claims lack merit. It concludes with cited case law, statutes, and regulations, dated January 27, 2026.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/californias-brief-in-opposition-brief-answering-january-27-2026/298607/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/californias-brief-in-opposition-brief-answering-january-27-2026/298607.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Blaney","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-05","2026-09-18",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",14,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What is the document’s purpose?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"It is California’s brief opposing Florida’s position before the Supreme Court of the United States, addressing jurisdiction and the merits of Florida’s proposed claims.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"Why does California argue Florida cannot invoke the Court’s original jurisdiction?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"The brief states that Florida fails to satisfy the demanding standard required for invoking the Court’s original jurisdiction.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"How does the brief assess Florida’s proposed claims?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"The brief argues Florida’s proposed claims are meritless, and it supports this through referenced authority including cases, statutes, and regulations.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},298607,1789760936,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":130,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},1236954677761,"https://us-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","In the Supreme Court of the United States  \nSTATE OF FLORIDA,  \nPlaintiff,  \nv.  \nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF WASHINGTON,  \nDefendants.  \nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION  \nROB BONTA  \nAttorney General of California SAMUEL T. HARBOURT  \nSolicitor General HELEN H. HONG  \nPrincipal Deputy Solicitor General  \nR. MATTHEW WISE Supervising Deputy  \nAttorney General  \nJanuary 27, 2026  \nDIANA L. KIM*  \nDeputy Solicitor General CHRISTINA MCCALL KRISTEN KIDO  \nSHIWON CHOE  \nDeputy Attorneys General  \nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE  \n455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 (415) 510-3369  \n[Diana.Kim@doj.ca.gov](Diana.Kim@doj.ca.gov)  \n* Counsel of Record  \nIntroduction ................................................................. 1  \nStatement .................................................................... 1  \nArgument ................................................................... 11  \nI. Florida fails to satisfy the demanding standard for invoking this Court’s original jurisdiction........................................................... 12  \nII. Florida’s proposed claims are meritless ............. 16  \nConclusion .................................................................. 23  \nCASES  \nAlabama v. Arizona 291 U.S. 286 (1934) ...................... 12, 14, 15, 16, 20  \nAlabama v. California 145 S. Ct. 757 (2025) ............................................ 14  \nArizona v. California 589 U.S. 1199 (2020) ............................................ 14  \nArizona v. New Mexico 425 U.S. 794 (1976) .............................................. 14  \nClapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA 568 U.S. 398 (2013) .............................................. 16  \nFTC v. Phoebe Putney Health Sys. 568 U.S. 216 (2013) .............................................. 13  \nGeorgia v. Tenn. Copper Co. 206 U.S. 230 (1907) .............................................. 21  \nLujan v. FMCSA No. 25-1215 , 2025 WL 3182504 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 13, 2025) ................................................. 8  \nMaryland v. Louisiana 451 U.S. 725 (1981) .............................................. 17  \nMississippi v. Louisiana 506 U.S. 73 (1992) .............................. 12, 13, 15, 16  \nMissouri v. California 586 U.S. 1065 (2019) ............................................ 14  \nMissouri v. Illinois 180 U.S. 208 (1901) .............................................. 21  \nNebraska v. Wyoming 515 U.S. 1 (1995) .................................................. 20  \nNew Jersey v. City of New York 283 U.S. 473 (1931) .............................................. 20  \nNew York v. New Jersey 256 U.S. 296 (1921) ............................ 12, 20, 21, 22  \nNorth Dakota v. Minnesota 263 U.S. 365 (1923) .............................................. 21  \nOhio v. Wyandotte Chems. Corp. 401 U.S. 493 (1971) ........................................ 12, 14  \nPennsylvania v. New Jersey 426 U.S. 660 (1976) ............................ 12, 13, 14, 17  \nRepublic of Argentina v. NML Cap. 573 U.S. 134 (2014) ........................................ 14, 15  \nSouth Carolina v. North Carolina 558 U.S. 256 (2010) .............................................. 12  \nTexas v. California 141 S. Ct. 1469 (2021) .......................................... 14  \nVerizon Md. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n ofMd. 535 U.S. 635 (2002) .............................................. 16  \nWyoming v. Oklahoma 502 U.S. 437 (1992) .............................................. 13  \nEx parte Young  \n209 U.S. 123 (1908) .............................................. 16  \nSTATUTES  \n49 U.S.C.  \n§ 31102 ................................................................ 2 , 3  \n§ 31301 .................................................................... 1  \n§ 31302 .................................................................... 1  \n§ 31308 .................................................................... 1  \n§ 31311 ....................................................","cbCaiguA0IVhd2at","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiguA0IVhd2at","pdf",303305,31,"English","# Introduction\n# Statement\n# Argument\n## Florida fails to satisfy the demanding standard for invoking this Court’s original jurisdiction\n## Florida’s proposed claims are meritless\n# Conclusion","[{\"question\":\"What is the document’s purpose?\",\"answer\":\"It is California’s brief opposing Florida’s position before the Supreme Court of the United States, addressing jurisdiction and the merits of Florida’s proposed claims.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does California argue Florida cannot invoke the Court’s original jurisdiction?\",\"answer\":\"The brief states that Florida fails to satisfy the demanding standard required for invoking the Court’s original jurisdiction.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the brief assess Florida’s proposed claims?\",\"answer\":\"The brief argues Florida’s proposed claims are meritless, and it supports this through referenced authority including cases, statutes, and regulations.\"}]","California’s Brief in Opposition - Brief - Answering January 27, 2026 | PDF",78]