American Electric Power Company, Inc. v. Connecticut
564 U.S. (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Clean Air Act, and the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under it, displaces any federal common law right to seek abatement of carbon-dioxide emissions through a public nuisance lawsuit.
Facts:
- Several states, the city of New York, and three private land trusts were concerned about the injuries caused by climate change.
- The defendants—American Electric Power Company, Southern Company, Xcel Energy Inc., Cinergy Corporation, and the Tennessee Valley Authority—are five of the largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the United States.
- The defendants' power plants collectively emit approximately 650 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, representing about 2.5 percent of worldwide anthropogenic emissions.
- The plaintiffs alleged these emissions contribute to global warming, creating a public nuisance that threatens their property, infrastructure, and public health.
- Specifically, the states and New York City alleged risks to public lands and health, while the land trusts alleged the destruction of natural habitats on lands they conserve.
Procedural Posture:
- Several states, New York City, and three land trusts filed separate federal common law public nuisance lawsuits against five major power companies in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The District Court dismissed the suits, holding that they presented non-justiciable political questions.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Second Circuit reversed the dismissal, holding that the political question doctrine did not bar the suit and that the plaintiffs had stated a valid claim under the federal common law of nuisance.
- The Second Circuit reasoned that the Clean Air Act did not yet displace the claims because the EPA had not yet promulgated final regulations for greenhouse gases from existing power plants.
- The defendant power companies (petitioners) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions displace federal common law public nuisance claims against greenhouse gas emitters?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
Yes, the Clean Air Act displaces federal common law public nuisance claims for carbon-dioxide emissions. The Court reasoned that when Congress enacts a statute that 'speaks directly' to a question previously governed by federal common law, the need for judge-made law disappears. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court established that the Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This delegation of authority to an expert agency, which must balance environmental, economic, and energy concerns, is a comprehensive legislative scheme that occupies the field. The displacement occurs because Congress has provided a mechanism for addressing the issue, not because the EPA has already completed its regulation. The proper recourse for the plaintiffs is to participate in the EPA's rulemaking process and then seek judicial review of the agency's final action, rather than asking federal courts to set emissions standards on a case-by-case basis.
Concurring - Justice Alito
Agreed with the judgment. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, concurred that the federal common law claims were displaced by the Clean Air Act. However, he did so on the assumption that the Court's prior holding in Massachusetts v. EPA—that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases—was correct, an issue he would have decided differently in that case.
Analysis:
This decision effectively closed the door on federal common law as a viable avenue for climate change litigation against emitters. By holding that the Clean Air Act's delegation of authority to the EPA displaces such claims, the Court funneled climate change disputes into the administrative law framework. This reinforces the separation of powers doctrine, affirming that complex, policy-laden regulatory issues should be handled by expert agencies designated by Congress, not by the judiciary on an ad-hoc basis. The ruling forces environmental advocates to focus their efforts on influencing the EPA's rulemaking process and challenging the agency's final decisions in court, rather than pursuing direct tort litigation against polluters in federal court.
Unlock the full brief for American Electric Power Company, Inc. v. Connecticut