Niskanen Center for Leave to Appear As Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent and Real Parties in Interest
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
(1 of 27) Case: 17-71692, 09/05/2017, ID: 10568881, DktEntry: 19-1, Page 1 of 4 Case No. 17-71692 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON, Respondent, and KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., Real Parties in Interest. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC-AA (D. Or.) MOTION OF NISKANEN CENTER FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT AND REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST __________________________________________________________________ David Bookbinder Niskanen Center 820 First Street, NE Suite 675 Washington, DC 20002 301-751-0611 [email protected] (2 of 27) Case: 17-71692, 09/05/2017, ID: 10568881, DktEntry: 19-1, Page 2 of 4 Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 29(a)(3), Niskanen Center, a 501(c)(3) libertarian think tank, requests leave to submit the attached amicus brief in the above-captioned action. Defendant-Petitioners and Plaintiff Real Parties in Interest having consented to this brief, Niskanen files this motion out of an abundance of caution as the District Court, the nominal Respondent, takes no position on it. Niskanen’s brief addresses solely the issues concerning the public trust doctrine. Niskanen takes no position on any other issue raised in this proceeding. Defendant United States asserts that the public trust doctrine does not apply to the federal government and, in any event, has been displaced by the Clean Air Act. Petition pp. 28-31. Because Plaintiffs make a limited response to the first argument (Answer, pp. 42-44), and none to the second, Niskanen believes that its brief will be of material assistance to the Court. Niskanen’s brief discusses the long line of Supreme Court cases applying the public trust doctrine to the federal government; the 20th century abrogation of common law private property interests in the atmosphere in favor of public ownership, which gives rise to a federal 1 (3 of 27) Case: 17-71692, 09/05/2017, ID: 10568881, DktEntry: 19-1, Page 3 of 4 responsibility for this resource; and the fact that, at a minimum, the Clean Air Act does not apply to emissions from sources outside of the United States, and thus cannot displace any common law remedy concerning injuries caused by those emissions. For these reasons, Niskanen respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and allow the filing of Niskanen’s amicus curiae brief. Respectfully submitted, s/David Bookbinder David Bookbinder Chief Counsel Niskanen Center 820 First Street, NE Suite 675 Washington, DC 20002 301-751-0611 [email protected] 2 (4 of 27) Case: 17-71692, 09/05/2017, ID: 10568881, DktEntry: 19-1, Page 4 of 4 Certificate of Service I certify that on September 5, 2017, I served a copy of the foregoing Motion for Leave to Appear as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent and Real Parties in Interest on counsel for all parties via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. s/David Bookbinder David Bookbinder 3 (5 of 27) Case: 17-71692, 09/05/2017, ID: 10568881, DktEntry: 19-2, Page 1 of 23 Case No. 17-71692 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON, Respondent, and KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., Real Parties in Interest. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC-AA (D. Or.) BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE NISKANEN CENTER IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT AND REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST __________________________________________________________________ David Bookbinder Niskanen Center 820 First Street, NE Suite 675 Washington, DC 20002 301-751-0611 [email protected] (6 of 27) Case: 17-71692, 09/05/2017, ID: 10568881, DktEntry: 19-2, Page 2 of 23 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Niskanen Center states that it does not have a parent corporation and that no publicly-held companies hold 10% or more of its stock. i (7 of 27) Case: 17-71692, 09/05/2017, ID: 10568881, DktEntry: 19-2, Page 3 of 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT …………………... i TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………… ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................... iii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................................. 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................................... 2 ARGUMENT ................................................................................ 4 I. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HOLDS THE ATMOSPHERE AS A PUBLIC TRUST. ….……………………… 4 A. The Supreme Court Has Recognized the Federal Government’s Public Trust Duties for More Than 170 Years. ………………………………………… 4 B. The Federal Government Has a Public Trust Duty to Protect the Atmosphere After it Eliminated Private Property Rights to Airspace in Favor of Public Ownership. ……………………………………………… 9 II. THE CLEAN AIR ACT DOES NOT DISPLACE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S ATMOSPHERIC PUBLIC TRUST DUTY. …………………………………………. 13 CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 15 ii (8 of 27) Case: 17-71692, 09/05/2017, ID: 10568881, DktEntry: 19-2, Page 4 of 23 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s) AEP v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011) ………………………… 13 Borax Ltd. v. Los Angeles, 296 U.S. 10 (1935) ………………….. 8 City of Tulsa v. Comm'rs of the Land Office, 101 P.2d 246 (Oklahoma 1940) …………………………………….. 8 Den ex dem. Gilliam v. Bird, 30 N.C. 280 (1848) ………………… 9 EPA v. EME Homer City Gen., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014) …………. 13 Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892) ….. 12 Johnson v. Curtiss Northwest Airplane Corp., Minn. Dist. Ct. (1923), reported in Aviation Cases (New York, Commerce Clearing House 1947- ) 1:61-63 ……………………… 9-10, 12 Knight v. United States Land Association, 141 U.S. 161 (1891) ………………………………………………….. 3, 7 Martin v. Waddell’s Lessee, 41 U.S. 367 (1842) …………………. 4, 5, 12 Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) …………………………. 13 Oregon ex rel. State Land Bd. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363 (1977) …………………………… 7, 8 Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagen, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) ………………….. 5, 6, 7 PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana, 565 U.S. 576 (2012) ……………. 8, 9 Smith v. New England Aircraft Co., 270 Mass. 511 (1930) ……… 10 iii (9 of 27) Case: 17-71692, 09/05/2017, ID: 10568881, DktEntry: 19-2, Page 5 of 23 Swetland v. Curtiss Airport Co., 55 F.2d 201(6th Cir. 1932) ……….. 11 United States v. 1.58 Acres of Land, 523 F. Supp. 120 (D. Mass 1981) ……………………………………….. 13 United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946) ……………………… 11, 12 Weber v. Board of Harbor Commissioners, 85 U.S. 57 (1873) .......... 7 STATUTES Adams-Onis Treaty: 8 Stat. 252 …………………………………………………………………. 5 Air Commerce Act of 1926: 44 Stat. 568, § 6(a)……………………………………………………… 3, 10 44 Stat. 568, § 10 …………………………………………………… 3, 10, 12 Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938: 52 Stat. 973, § 3 …………………………………………………………. 12 Federal Aviation Act of 1958: 49 U.S.C. § 40103(a)(1) …………………………………………………... 12 49 U.S.C. § 40103(a)(2) …………………………………………………… 12 “Mobile Act” of 1804: 2 Stat. 251, § 11 ……………………………………………………………. 5 2 Stat. 734 …………………………………………………………………… 5 OTHER AUTHORITIES https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9130us2m.htm ........................ 14-15 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30332 ………… 14-15 https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist /LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTEXUS2&f=M…………………. 14-15 iv (10 of 27) Case: 17-71692, 09/05/2017, ID: 10568881, DktEntry: 19-2, Page 6 of 23 https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/appa.pdf ………………………. 15 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/ 30/us-fossil-fuel-investment-obama-climate-change-legacy ……….. 15 v (11 of 27) Case: 17-71692, 09/05/2017, ID: 10568881, DktEntry: 19-2, Page 7 of 23 STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE1 Amicus Niskanen Center is a 501(c)(3) libertarian think tank with a strong interest in securing Americans’ rights to their property, and the question whether the public trust doctrine applies to the federal government seriously implicates those rights.2 Petitioner United States concedes that the health and real property of all Americans is threatened by global warming, and that global warming is due to human emissions of greenhouse gasses.3 Answer, ¶¶ 5-8. But having abrogated private property interests in the atmosphere and declared it instead to be public property, the federal government now disclaims any trusteeship duty to properly manage and preserve it. Admitting that atmospheric degradation is a grave threat to all Americans, while denying that it has any responsibility to preserve this resource, is a complete abdication of the federal government’s sovereign responsibilities. 1 No counsel for any party authored any part of this brief, and no party, their counsel, or anyone other than Niskanen has made a monetary contribution intended to fund its preparation or submission. 2 This brief addresses only the public trust doctrine issue, and Niskanen takes no position on other issues raised in this proceeding. 3 Libertarian philosophy includes within “property” not only real and personal property, but also each person’s body. 1 (12 of 27) Case: 17-71692, 09/05/2017, ID: 10568881, DktEntry: 19-2, Page 8 of 23 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The District Court committed no error – let alone “clear error” – in holding that the United States is subject to a public trust duty to protect the atmosphere, and that this remedy is not displaced by the Clean Air Act. During the 19th and early 20th centuries the Supreme Court was confronted with the federal government’s management of the quintessential public trust property – land under tidewaters and navigable waterways – in the territories that were later to become states. Because the original 13 states held all such lands as public trust property, and the Constitution (Article 4, § 3) requires that new states be admitted “on equal footing” with their predecessors, the Court held that new states must enjoy the same rights to those submerged lands within their borders.