Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1923358
 
 

Footnotes (386)



 


 



Reading the Standing Tea Leaves in American Electric Power v. Connecticut


Bradford C. Mank


University of Cincinnati - College of Law

September 19, 2011

University of Richmond Law Review, Vol. 46, p. 543, 2012
U of Cincinnati Public Law Research Paper No. 11-08

Abstract:     
In American Electric Power v. Connecticut (AEP), the U.S. Supreme Court by an equally divided vote of four to four affirmed the Second Circuit’s decision finding standing and jurisdiction in the case. Even though it did not announce the identities of the justices who voted for standing and against standing, the AEP decision took the unusual step of providing some explanation for how the Court divided on the standing question, and, as a result, provided important information about the positions of the justices on the issue. While it is not binding as a decision for the lower courts except for the Second Circuit, the AEP decision’s four to four affirmance of the Second Circuit’s standing decision provides important clues to how the Court is likely to rule in future standing cases. This Article will discuss the likely identity of the justices on each side of the standing issue in AEP. Furthermore, the Article will speculate regarding how Justice Sotomayor might have voted in the case if she had not recused herself. Implicitly, the AEP decision reaffirmed and even expanded its standing analysis in Massachusetts v. EPA, which recognized that states have special standing rights when they sue as parens patriae to protect their state’s natural resources or the health of their citizens. The AEP arguably adopted an even broader standing analysis than Massachusetts by eliminating the requirement of a statutory procedural right as a basis for standing. State standing is important because state attorney generals are involved in many different kinds of suits in federal courts. In particular, state suits are likely to be significant in future climate change cases if states file state common law nuisance claims or challenges to EPA regulations relating to carbon dioxide.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 61

Keywords: Standing, Jurisdiction, American Electric Power v. Connecticut

JEL Classification: K10, K23, K32

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: September 7, 2011 ; Last revised: June 7, 2012

Suggested Citation

Mank, Bradford C., Reading the Standing Tea Leaves in American Electric Power v. Connecticut (September 19, 2011). University of Richmond Law Review, Vol. 46, p. 543, 2012; U of Cincinnati Public Law Research Paper No. 11-08. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1923358

Contact Information

Bradford C. Mank (Contact Author)
University of Cincinnati - College of Law ( email )
P.O. Box 210040
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0040
United States
513-556-0094 (Phone)
513-556-1236 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 508
Downloads: 52
Download Rank: 234,247
Footnotes:  386

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.422 seconds