Advertisement

May 25, 2013

U.S. Supreme Court Faces Issue of Litigation vs Regulation for Setting GHG Limits

12 states have filed a brief (as Amici Curiae) with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Petition of American Electric Power Company, Inc., et al. for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and asking that the Supreme Court reverse the 2nd Circuit’s recent holding that:

States and private plaintiffs may maintain actions under federal common law alleging that defendants—in this case, five electric utilities—have created a “public nuisance” by contributing to global warming, and may seek injunctive relief capping defendants’ carbon dioxide emissions at judicially-determined levels. [Emphasis added]

The 12 states’ brief contends that, in contrast with cases where federal courts review the legality of agency rules by reference to how Congress has resolved a political debate, the 2nd Circuit’s decision proposes to resolve by judicial fiat the ongoing public debate over greenhouse gas regulation. Such regulation, the states further contend, requires determinations of national, regional, and local policy outside of the competency of the judiciary, and only statutes and regulations duly enacted by representatives accountable to the citizenry can legitimately define CO2 limits.

Please click here for the AEPC vs. Conn Amici States' brief.

Reposted with permission from Andrews Kurth's EcoZone Blog. 

© 2013 Andrews Kurth LLP

About the Author

Straight talk about various topics of environmental interest, rulemaking support, and climate change.

713.220.4200

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.