Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02142/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02142-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)

---

1

No. 2:19-cv-02142-WBS-EFB

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION REQUESTING LEAVE TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RICHARD M. FRANK (SBN 63482) 

Professor of Environmental Practice

SCHOOL OF LAW

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

400 Mrak Hall Drive

Davis, CA 95616 

Telephone: (916) 217-1292

Facsimile: (530) 752-4704

Email: rmfrank@ucdavis.edu

 

Attorney for Amici Curiae Professors

of Foreign Relations Law

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; GAVIN

C. NEWSOM, in his official capacity as

Governor of the State of California; THE

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD;

MARY D. NICHOLS, in her official

capacities as Chair of the California Air

Resources Board and as Vice Chair and a

board member of the Western Climate

Initiative, Inc.; WESTERN

CLIMATE INITIATIVE, INC.; JARED

BLUMENFELD, in his official capacities as

Secretary for Environmental Protection and as a 

board member of the Western Climate

Initiative, Inc.; KIP LIPPER, in his official

capacity as a board member of the Western

Climate Initiative, Inc., and RICHARD

BLOOM, in his official capacity as a board

member of the Western Climate Initiative,

Inc.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 2:19-cv-02142-WBS-EFB

PROFESSORS OF FOREIGN RELATIONS 

LAW’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND 

MOTION REQUESTING LEAVE TO FILE

AMICI CURIAE BRIEF; MEMORANDUM OF 

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 

THEREOF; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF PROFESSORS OF 

FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW

Judge: Hon. William B. Shubb

Date: Not yet set

Time: Not yet set

Courtroom: 5 (14th Floor)

Action Filed: October 23, 2019

Case 2:19-cv-02142-WBS-EFB Document 73 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 4
2

No. 2:19-cv-02142-WBS-EFB

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION REQUESTING LEAVE TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

The Professors of Foreign Relations Law identified in the appendix to the accompanying, 

proposed Amici Curiae brief respectfully move the Court for leave to file that Amici Curiae brief. The

motion is based on this Notice, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and the Amici Curiae brief.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

This Court may permit a non-party to participate as amicus curiae if it has “unique information 

or perspective” on an issue raised by the parties, or if such an issue “has potential ramifications beyond 

the parties....” NGV Gaming Ltd. v. Upstream Point Molate, LLC, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (N.D.

Cal. 2005).

The extent, if any, to which an amicus curiae should be permitted to participate in a 

pending action is solely within the broad discretion of the district court. Pennsylvania 

Environmental Defense Foundation v. Bellefonte Borough, 718 F. Supp. 431, 434 (M.D. Pa.

1989); United States v. Gotti, 775 F. Supp. 1157, 1158 (E.D.N.Y. 1991); Leigh v. Engle, 535 F. 

Supp. 418, 420 (N.D. Ill. 1982). A court may grant leave to appear as an amicus if the information 

offered is “timely and useful.” Yip v. Pagano, 606 F. Supp. 1566, 1568 (D.N.J. 1985), aff’d mem., 

782 F.2d 1033 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1141 (1986). Absent a statute to the contrary, no 

distinction is made between the request of a private person for leave to appear as amicus curiae, 

and one by an agent of the government. Leigh, 535 F. Supp. at 420.

An amicus, of course, is not a party to the litigation and participates only to assist the 

Court. Nevertheless, “by the nature of things an amicus is not normally impartial.” Gotti, 755 F. 

Supp. at 1158 (quoting Strasser v. Doorley, 432 F.2d 567 (1st Cir. 1970)). While the partiality of 

an amicus is a factor to consider in deciding whether to allow participation, “there is no rule ... 

that amici must be totally disinterested.” Concerned Area Residents for the Environment v. 

Southview Farm, 834 F. Supp. 1410, 1413 (W.D.N.Y. 1993) (quoting Hoptowit v Ray, 682 F.2d 

1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982)).

District courts frequently welcome amicus briefs from non-parties concerning legal issues 

that have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or if the amicus has “unique 

information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties 

Case 2:19-cv-02142-WBS-EFB Document 73 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 4
3

No. 2:19-cv-02142-WBS-EFB

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION REQUESTING LEAVE TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

are able to provide.” Cobell v. Norton, 246 F. Supp. 2d 59, 62 (D.D.C. 2003) (quoting Ryan v. 

Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1064 (7th Cir. 1997)). 

The amici Professors of Foreign Relations Law identified individually in the appendix to the 

accompanying, proposed Amici Curiae brief teach and pursue scholarship at numerous law schools 

throughout the United States. Individually and collectively, they possess deep and longstanding 

expertise in the fields of foreign relations law and international law, and concerning agreements of 

various kinds between subnational governments. Specifically, they are familiar with numerous past 

agreements between U.S. states and other jurisdictions.

These amici can provide a unique perspective regarding the kinds of agreements that are 

properly deemed treaties under the Treaty Clause in Article I, section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. They 

can similarly analyze what kinds of agreements are properly deemed compacts requiring congressional 

approval under the Compact Clause in Article I, section 10 of the Constitution. Amici are also uniquely 

qualified to address how this Court’s interpretation of the Compact Clause may affect the distribution 

of authority between Congress and the executive branch with respect to foreign relations.

Moreover, these amici seek to bring to the attention of this Court numerous past agreements 

between subnational governments in the United States and abroad that—like the California-Quebec 

agreement at issue in this case—do not rise to the status of a treaty or compact within the meaning of 

the Treaty and Compact Clauses of the Constitution.

Proposed amici respectfully suggest that the information and analysis contained in the attached 

Amici Curiae brief may assist the Court in its deliberations in this case.

WHEREFORE, the identified Professors of Foreign Relations Law move for an order granting 

leave to file their Amici Curiae brief.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: February 14, 2020 /s/ Richard M. Frank

Richard M. Frank

Attorney for Amici Curiae Professors of

Foreign Relations Law

Case 2:19-cv-02142-WBS-EFB Document 73 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 4
4

No. 2:19-cv-02142-WBS-EFB

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION REQUESTING LEAVE TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

On February 14, 2020, Professors of Foreign Relations Law filed a “Motion for Leave to File 

Amici Curiae brief” in this case. After considering the Motion and responses by the parties, the Court 

grants the Motion, orders the Amici Curiae brief to be filed, and will consider that brief in its 

deliberation in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-02142-WBS-EFB Document 73 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 4