Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, Cato Legal Briefs

American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, Cato Legal Briefs

Ratings:

3.0

(1)
|Views: 817 |Likes:
Published by Cato Institute

More info:

Published by: Cato Institute on Sep 07, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
No. 10-174I
N
 
THE
Supreme Court of the United States
 
 _______________________________ 
O
N
P
ETITION
 
FOR
 
A
W
RIT
 
OF
C
ERTIORARI
 
TO
 
THE
U
NITED
S
TATES
C
OURT
 
OF
A
PPEALS
 
FOR
 
THE
S
ECOND
C
IRCUIT
232139
(800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859
 A 
MERICAN
E
LECTRIC
P
OWER
C
O
.,
ET
 
 AL
.,
 Petitioners
,
v.
C
ONNECTICUT
,
ET
 
 AL
.,
 Respondents.
BRIEF FOR THE CATO INSTITUTE AS
 AMICUS CURIAE
SUPPORTINGPETITIONERS
A
 A 
NDREW 
G. M
C
B
RIDE
M
EGAN
L. B
ROWN
*B
RENDAN
T. C
 ARR
E
MILY 
F. S
CHLEICH
ER
 W 
ILEY 
R
EIN
LLP1776 K Street, NW  Washington, DC 20006(202) 719-7000mbrown@wileyrein.com*
Counsel of Record
I
LYA 
S
HAPIRO
C
 ATO
I
NSTITUTE
1000 Mass. Ave, NW  Washington, DC 20001(202) 842-0200ishapiro@cato.org
 
i
QUESTION PRESENTED
 Whether the Second Circuit decision underminesthe separation of powers by opening federal courts tosuits against any entity that allegedly “contributes” toglobal warming, and by approving the judicial creationof national environmental and economic policy throughthe development and imposition of caps on carbondioxide emissions.
 
iiCited Authorities Page
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTION PRESENTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iiTABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . .ivINTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE . . . . . . . . . .1SUMMARY OF REASONS TO GRANT THEPETITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION4I.THE RESULT BELOW ENCOURAGESTHE ARTICLE I AND II BRANCHESTO ABDICATE RESPONSIBILITY  AND UNDERMINES THESEPARATION OF POWERS. . . . . . . . . . .4II.THIS DISPUTE OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A “CASE ORCONTROVERSY” WITHIN THEMEANING OF ARTICLE III. . . . . . . . . .9 A.The “Case or Controversy”Limitation on Judicial Action IsIndispensible to the Separation of Powers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9B.The Decision Below Misapplies The“Causation” Aspect Of Standing, A Crucial Limitation On Article IIIPower. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
my_khan20027195 liked this
thajost liked this
markschell liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->