Date: 20 June 2011
Court: United States Supreme Court
Citation(s): Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011)
Short summary
Individuals and groups sued electric companies emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide on federal common law grounds. The Supreme court unanimously ruled that, under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency has the exclusive authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, displacing any claims against polluters that seek direct judicial regulation.
Summary by: Gazal Gupta
Click here to open the case in PDF format
Weight of decision
This decision is binding on all United States federal and state courts.
Key facts
Several non-profit groups and states claimed violations of federal common law against five private energy corporations emitting significant greenhouse gases (GHGs) (650 million annual tonnes as a group). Plaintiffs argued that significant contributions to global warming constituted interstate nuisance and allowed them to seek a court order limiting GHG emissions from Defendant’s plants. Defendants responded that, under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has exclusive authority to regulate GHGs.
Previous instances
Since Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), there has been no general federal common law recognized by courts in the United States.
In Massachusetts v. EPA, carbon dioxide and other GHGs were held to fall within the scope of the CAA for regulation by EPA, and states were granted standing to sue for harms incurred by climate change.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court which first heard this case and ruled that petitioners had standing and stated administrable nuisance claims not pre-empted by the grant of regulatory authority to the EPA under the CAA.
Summary of holding
On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit on petitioner’s standing but unanimously reversed on the administrability of their claims, holding that § 202(a) of the CAA displaced federal common law by granting the EPA the sole power to regulate GHGs.
Potential takeaways for future climate migration litigation
- Creative legal strategies invoking older traditions from federal common law in the United States are unlikely to succeed, especially when a certain field of regulation or enforcement has been occupied by an agency such as the EPA. Harms incurred by climate change should be litigated primarily on statutory grounds in the United States.