Exxon's case against the state was dismissed with prejudice by a Federal judge. But noted in their claim the utterly offensive odious language of Exxon's constitutional rights. What kind of rights would it have beyond standard contract stuff? The right to exploit people like Jefferson Davis wanted in his negotiations with Lincoln? Seems like the US legal profession may need to rework its use of certain terms as they seem to come off very wrong in public. Good luck saying states have such rights (as fictitious entities) but sure as hell not Exxon. Its been stripped of its rights in the court of public opinion as the OJ of corporate hoods, maybe akin to the way human criminals lose certain rights in US culture. But given what David Hume did to the notion of rights, vital as the notion is, if it applies it only applies to people, period. The public will never accept this idiotic notion of corporate rights. Its an animistic misuse of language. Its like saying the money of the rich has rights and redundant rights at that. Its pure BS. No, only people have rights as only people can actually meaningfully benefit from rights. "Rights" aren't even the right term when two groups clash. Maybe corporates have 'slights' but never rights not even in contract. Even the notion of "rights" holders is a ridiculous misuse of language because it sets up the misnomer of a special class of people with rights different from everyone else because of their special privileged situation- utter nonsense. Even if someone pressed, it would seem more acceptable to say Tesla had rights but never Exxon- those it seems are quite forfeit if they ever existed in the first place. One way of showing this would be to dissolve the firm and cash its share holders out for 0 on the dollar- certainly the public sector has paid them off 10000x over for any actual contribution in under the table endless hollowing out welfare. People have had at least 5 decades to figure out that investment in Exxon is criminal stupid. If law is ultimately culture, US culture will never ultimate accept the notion of 'corporate rights.'