ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, No (and consolidated cases) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Similar documents
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, et. al., Petitioners, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondents.

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR MAY 8, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

HARVARD LAW SCHOOL Environmental Law Program

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No (and consolidated cases) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2 AND 3, 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORIGINAL RECEIVED 2 Z015 ) ) ) ) ) ) PETITION FOR ) REVIEW ) ) ) No DEC FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA C

ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 27, No and Consolidated Cases

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 10/23/2015 Page 1 of Constitution Avenue,

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

In the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT HELD DECEMBER 10, 2013 DECIDED APRIL 15, 2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED: OCTOBER 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, et al.,

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT HELD APRIL 13, 2012 No and consolidated cases (COMPLEX)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 10/23/2015. DISTRICT OF COWMBAaijh 1

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, 2016

ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORU l;~]i ^i^totestodhhfw^

SEVENTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FILING CHECKLIST

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct (2011). Talasi Brooks ABSTRACT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., BRIEF OF FIVE U.S. SENATORS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

[ORAL ARGUMENT NOT SCHEDULED] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT : : : : MOTION TO GOVERN

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

GOVERNOR AG LEGISLATURE PUC DEQ

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. JEFFREY F. SAYERS Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 1 of 15

[ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON APRIL 15, 2016] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. Defendants-Appellees.

Table of Contents. Both petitioners and EPA are supported by numerous amici curiae (friends of the court).

In The Supreme Court of the United States

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 218 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 4

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

FOR DISTRIGT OF COLUMBIA 9fHE UNITED STATES COURT OF URAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION; BASIN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE; EAST

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, CHARLES D.

ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER AND HOLD CASES IN ABEYANCE

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, 2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v.

\{."--, Under Section 307 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b), Section 706 of

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 09/09/2011 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 19- In the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Nos and IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCLED^^SSSmi^

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

[ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 15, 2010] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE,

Case: Document: Filed: 09/04/2012 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Filed: September 04, 2012

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Nos (L), IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.

Case 2:16-cv NDF Document 29 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp.: Administrative and Procedural Tools in Environmental Law. by Ryan Petersen *

No IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT LEON H. RIDEOUT; ANDREW LANGOIS; BRANDON D. ROSS. Plaintiff - Appellees

No IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

*west 1 CO > % as *<\S. State of West Virginia Office of the Attorney General. Attorney General. December 14, 2016

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED. No and Consolidated Cases

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Transcription:

USCA Case #15-1363 Document #1600435 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 1 of 6 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, 2016 No. 15-1363 (and consolidated cases) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, et. al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondents. On Petitions for Review of Final Agency Action of the United States Environmental Protection Agency 80 Fed. Reg. 64,662 (Oct. 23, 2015) LANDMARK LEGAL FOUNDATION'S MOTION TO PARTICIPATE AS AMICUS CURIAE Richard P. Hutchison, Esq.* Counsel of Record Mark R. Levin, Esq. Michael J. O Neill, Esq. Matthew C. Forys, Esq. Landmark Legal Foundation 3100 Broadway, Suite 1210 Kansas City, MO 64111 rpetehutch@aol.com Dated: February 23, 2016

USCA Case #15-1363 Document #1600435 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 2 of 6 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(b), and D.C. Circuit Rule 29(b), Landmark Legal Foundation (Landmark or Amicus), respectfully moves for leave to participate as amicus curiae in support of Petitioners in the above-captioned action for review of the final rule promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entitled Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, 80 Fed. Reg. 64,661 (Oct. 23, 2015) (Clean Power Plan). Landmark has sought the consent of all Petitioners, Respondents and Intervenors. The states of Missouri and Louisiana consent to the motion. No other parties have expressed a position. In accordance with Landmark's request for consent, the absent of a response by a party or intervenor is being reported as not taking a position. Therefore, no objection to this motion has been received. I. BACKGROUND On October 23, 2015, the EPA published its final version of the Clean Power Plan, which regulates carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411(d), 80 Fed. Reg. 64,661 (Oct. 23, 2015). Petitioners have filed nearly forty consolidated cases seeking judicial review of the Clean Power Plan. II. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rules, [a]ny individual or

USCA Case #15-1363 Document #1600435 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 3 of 6 non-governmental entity intending to participate as amicus curiae must file either a written representation that all parties consent to such participation, or, in the absence of such consent, a motion for leave to participate as amicus curiae. D.C. Cir. R. 29(b). A motion for leave to participate must state the movant s interest the reason why an amicus brief is desirable and why the matters asserted are relevant to the disposition of the case. Fed. R. App. P. 29(b). III. LEGAL ANALYSIS Landmark Legal Foundation is a national public interest law firm committed to preserving the principles of limited government, separation of powers, federalism, advancing an originalist approach to the Constitution, and defending individual rights and responsibilities. Specializing in Constitutional history and litigation, Landmark seeks to present this Court a unique perspective concerning the EPA's serial abuse of power throughout the current administration. Disregarding limits placed on the Executive branch by the Constitution's principles of federalism and separation of powers, the EPA has promulgated a rule granting itself broad new powers to regulate the United States electrical grid. EPA ignores unambiguous limitations contained within the Clean Air Act ( CAA or the Act ), forgoes the fact it lacks the requisite expertise to regulate the power sector, and engages in an unconstitutional legislative act. It does all of this in an

USCA Case #15-1363 Document #1600435 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 4 of 6 attempt to snuff out the most essential component of this nation s electrical power generation. Such brazen action should not be permitted by this Court. III. CONCLUSION For reasons stated herein, Landmark respectfully moves for this Court's permission to participate as Amicus Curiae. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Richard P. Hutchison Richard P. Hutchison Esq. Landmark Legal Foundation 3100 Broadway Suite 1210 Kansas City, MO 64111 816-931-5559 rpetehutch@aol.com Attorney for Amicus Curiae CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE This motion complies with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 27(d)(1) & (2) and 29(b) and D.C. Circuit Rule 29(c) because it meets the prescribed format requirements, does not exceed 20 pages, and is being filed as promptly as practicable after the case was docketed by this Court. This motion also complies with the typeface requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(5) & (6) because it has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in 14-point Times New Roman.

USCA Case #15-1363 Document #1600435 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 5 of 6

USCA Case #15-1363 Document #1600435 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 6 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on this 23 day of February, 2016, a copy of the foregoing Brief of Amicus Curiae Landmark Legal Foundation In Support Of Petitioners was served electronically through the Court s CM/ECF system on all ECF-registered counsel. /s/ Richard P. Hutchison Counsel for Amicus Curiae