SCOTUS Rejects Federal Common Law Nuisance Claims for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
06.20.11 1:32 PMIn a unanimous 8-0 decision this morning, the United States Supreme Court found that the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq., displaces alleged common law nuisance claims against greenhouse gas emitters. The Court’s ruling, in American Electric Power Co., Inc., et al. v. Connecticut, et al., 564 U.S. ____ (2011), essentially ends the federal nuisance action brought by several states, the city of New York, and private land trusts against four private electric utility companies and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The plaintiffs had sought injunctive relief requiring each defendant to cap their carbon dioxide emissions and then reduce those emissions over time.
In the time period between the filing of the initial nuisance actions and today’s decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), that EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. In 2009, EPA issued an endangerment finding that greenhouse gas emissions cause or contribute to air pollution that could endanger the public health. Since the endangerment finding, EPA has issued rules regulating greenhouse gas emissions from light duty vehicles as well as from other major greenhouse emission sources.
One of the questions presented involved whether states and private parties have standing under Article III of the Constitution to pursue this claim. The Court was equally divided on this issue. (Justice Sotomayor was recused because she sat on the Second Circuit panel that heard the case before both it and she reached the Supreme Court.) Thus, the Court upheld the lower court’s exercise of jurisdiction and proceeded to hear the case on its merits, on which the Justices unanimously agreed.
The Court relied on its prior ruling in Massachusetts to conclude that the Clean Air Act and EPA’s regulations completely displace any federal common law of nuisance relating to greenhouse gas emissions. The Court found that the enforcement options available to EPA and to citizens and states are sufficient to ensure that the alleged harms that plaintiffs sought to remedy were addressed. Finally, the Court concluded that EPA, as an expert agency, was in a far better position to effectively regulate greenhouse gases than the federal judiciary.
Additional background on this case can be found in our previous entry, posted on the day of oral argument.
Many thanks to Ken Gish for his contribution to this post!
Leave a Comment
No comments yet. You should leave one!