<Ul> <Li> In his dissent in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (549 US 497, 2007), Chief Justice John G. Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court cites "all for the want of a horseshoe nail" as an example of a possible chain of causation . He claimed that, by contrast, the threshold jurisdictional issue of standing requires a likely chain of causation, which was not satisfied by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of new automobile emissions to prevent the loss of Massachusetts coastal land due to climate change . </Li> <Li> In his dissent in CSX Transportation, Inc. v. McBride, Roberts again invokes the proverb, explaining that, in tort law, the doctrine of proximate cause is meant to "limit () liability at some point before the want of a nail leads to loss of the kingdom ." </Li> </Ul> <Li> In his dissent in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (549 US 497, 2007), Chief Justice John G. Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court cites "all for the want of a horseshoe nail" as an example of a possible chain of causation . He claimed that, by contrast, the threshold jurisdictional issue of standing requires a likely chain of causation, which was not satisfied by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of new automobile emissions to prevent the loss of Massachusetts coastal land due to climate change . </Li> <Li> In his dissent in CSX Transportation, Inc. v. McBride, Roberts again invokes the proverb, explaining that, in tort law, the doctrine of proximate cause is meant to "limit () liability at some point before the want of a nail leads to loss of the kingdom ." </Li> <P> For want of a nail a horseshoe was lost, for want of a horseshoe a horse went lame, for want of a horse a rider never got through, for want of a rider a message never arrived, for want of a message an army was never sent, for want of an army a battle was lost, for want of a battle a war was lost, for want of a war a kingdom fell, </P>

All for the loss of a horseshoe nail