due-process-clause-14th-amendment

question presented is: Does a state supreme court’s unprecedented and unwarranted interpretation of a statute, which has the effect of imposing previously unanticipated punitive liability, violate due process and fair notice rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution? 2. This Court has described the adversarial system of adjudication as a pillar of the American legal process. See, e.g., United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. 371, 376 (2020). To guarantee that parties are requisitely opposed, courts have historically ensured that litigants have proper standing to bring suit—that is, courts generally mandate that litigating parties each have a “personal stake in the outcome of” a case. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 205 (1962). Otherwise, given the binding nature of stare decisis, non-parties and future litigants that will ultimately be bound by a court’s decision have no guarantee that their legal interests, which include due process rights to notice and a hearing, are being adequately protected. (i) ll The Supreme Court of Alabama neglected to consider whether Respondents have requisite standing to bring the case here. Instead, that court forged ahead and introduced a troubling new legal regime for which scores of Alabamians “had neither input, nor redress, nor a hearing,” yet to which those citizens remain bound, contrary to the fundamental due process protections guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Pet.App.106a (Sellers, J., dissenting). The second question presented is: Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution demand that a court ensure that a litigant has standing to bring a lawsuit before addressing the merits of an action?