Client Alert
June 2011
Supreme Court Sounds Death Knell
for Climate Change Claims Based on
Federal Common Law Nuisance
In a decision firmly shutting the federal floodgates, the U.S. Supreme Court decided
that federal common law nuisance claims cannot be brought against utilities for their
greenhouse gas emissions. In the closely-watched case American Electric Power v.
Connecticut, the Court ruled 8-0 that the federal Clean Air Act “displaces” the federal
common law cause of action, which to date has been one of the primary avenues for tort
claims arising out of greenhouse gas emissions.
In 2004, eight states, New York City and three land trusts brought suit against five
electric utilities, including the government operated Tennessee Valley Authority. The
plaintiffs alleged that the utilities were the five largest emitters of carbon dioxide in
the United States and that the utilities’ emissions amounted to a public nuisance under
federal common law by contributing to global warming. The plaintiffs sought an
injunction requiring each defendant to abate its contribution to global warming through
an initial cap, followed by annual emission reduction.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed in the complaint in
2005, holding that the case presented a “political question” more appropriately handled
by the elected branches of government. Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co., 406
F.Supp.2d 265, 288 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). In 2009, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed, holding in a lengthy opinion that courts have long adjudicated nuisance claims
involving pollution, and further holding that the plaintiffs had “standing” to pursue these
particular claims. Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co., 582 F.3d 309, 350-71 (2d
Cir. 2009).
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the Clean Air
Act “speaks directly” to the question at issue. Because carbon dioxide is a “pollutant”
under the Clean Air Act (as determined by the Court’s 2007 decision Massachusetts v.
EPA), EPA has the power to set emissions limits for carbon dioxide after making certain
findings. According to the Court, this delegation of the power to regulate is sufficient to
“displace” the federal common law cause of action – even though actual EPA regulation of
greenhouse gas emissions by utilities is not expected until mid-2012 at the earliest.
“Displacement” of federal common law by federal statute is akin to “preemption-lite.”
Quoting its historic opinion in Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 204 (1981) (determining that
Environment & Energy Practice Group
www.drinkerbiddle.com
Client Alert
June 2011
the 1977 Clean Water Act amendments similarly displaced federal common law in the
water arena), the Court explained that displacement “does not require the ‘same sort of
evidence of a clear and manifest [congressional] purpose’ demanded for preemption of
state law.” In its displacement analysis, the Court saw “no room for a parallel track” of ad
hoc emissions regulation through individual federal nuisance claims.
Expressing concern that nuisance claims adjudicated by ill-equipped federal judges would
lead to piecemeal decisions and inconsistent remedies, the Court noted that the Clean Air
Act provides for a comprehensive regulatory scheme administered by an expert agency.
The Court emphasized, however, that EPA’s future regulatory actions remain subject to
judicial review under the well-established “arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law” standard.
Interestingly, the Court was evenly split on whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing.
Four justices believed that the plaintiffs had standing under Massachusetts v. EPA, while
four were of the view that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The latter four justices followed
the dissent in Massachusetts v. EPA or distinguished that case. Because the Court was
equally divided, the practical effect was to affirm the Second Circuit’s holding that the
plaintiffs had standing.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor recused herself because she had heard oral arguments in
Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co. as a member of the Second Circuit. Ironically,
she did not actually participate in the Second Circuit decision because she was elevated to
the Supreme Court between the argument and issuance of the decision.
Of particular note, the Supreme Court concluded its opinion by observing that the
question of whether nuisance claims based on state common law could proceed was not
decided below. The precedent cited was International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S.
481 (1987), a case holding that the Clean Water Act does not preclude environmental
plaintiffs from pursuing state common law claims in water pollution matters. Whether
that pointed citation was foreshadowing or not, many of the same considerations that
led the Supreme Court to its displacement decision here – such as piecemeal decisionmaking and the judiciary’s lack of expert agency resources – likely will play a role in any
preemption analysis regarding state common law claims.
Finally, in addition to potential state common law claims and challenges to EPA’s
administrative process, actions under NEPA remain a threat for many significant
projects involving greenhouse gas emissions, particularly challenges to the sufficiency
of environmental assessments and impact statements that fail to adequately consider
climate change. So, while the Supreme Court has closed the courthouse door on federal
common law nuisance claims attacking greenhouse gas emissions, the potential for
continued climate change litigation remains very real and present – at least for now.
Environment & Energy Practice Group
www.drinkerbiddle.com
2
Client Alert
June 2011
Environment & Energy Practice Group
If you would like more information regarding this alert please contact Bonnie Allyn Barnett at
(215) 988-2916 or [email protected], Andrew Foster at (215) 988-2512 or
[email protected] or Leigh Bausinger at (215) 988-2725 or [email protected]
or your regular Drinker Biddle contact.
Bonnie A. Barnett
(215) 988-2916
[email protected]
Roy M. Harsch
(312) 569-1441
[email protected]
Ellen Radow Sadat
(609) 716-6611
[email protected]
Christopher Berendt
(202) 230-5426
[email protected]
Ballard Jamieson, Jr.
(202) 230-5189
[email protected]
Joseph N. Schmidt, Jr.
(609) 716-6578
[email protected]
Christopher W. Boyle
(215) 988-2962
[email protected]
Richard Kissel
(312) 569-1442
[email protected]
Thomas E. Starnes
(202) 230-5192
[email protected]
C. Baird Brown
(215) 988-3338
[email protected]
Kimberly A. Klock
(215) 988-2674
[email protected]
Shawn P. Tucker
(302) 467-4242
[email protected]
Jennifer Cohen
(609) 716-6510
[email protected]
Ross A. Lewin
(609) 716-6614
[email protected]
William L. Warren
(609) 716-6603
[email protected]
Tara L. Flynn
(610) 993-2223
[email protected]
Mark G. Maser
(609) 716-6607
[email protected]
Vernon I. Zvoleff
(415) 591-7590
[email protected]
Andrew P. Foster
(215) 988-2512
[email protected]
Lori A. Mills
(609) 716-6632
[email protected]
Vincent E. Gentile
(609) 716-6619
[email protected]
Sean T. Monaghan
(973) 549-7230
[email protected]
Other Publications
Sign Up
www.drinkerbiddle.com/publications
www.drinkerbiddle.com/publications/signup
© 2011 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.
All rights reserved.
A Delaware limited liability partnership
Jonathan I. Epstein and Edward A. Gramigna, Jr.,
Partners in Charge of the Princeton and Florham Park,
N.J., offices, respectively.
This Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP communication
is intended to inform our clients and friends of
developments in the law and to provide information
of general interest. It is not intended to constitute
advice regarding any client’s legal problems and
should not be relied upon as such.
Environment & Energy Practice Group
california | delaware | illinois | new jersey
new york | pennsylvania | washington DC | wisconsin
3