Case Summary
Issue:
Whether States and private parties have standing to seek judicially fashioned emissions caps on four private utility companies for their alleged contribution to harms claimed to arise from global climate change caused by more than a century of emissions by billions of independent sources?
Plaintiff:
[Petitioners] American Electric Power Company Inc., American Electric Power Service Corp., Cinergy Corp., Southern Company, Xcel Energy Inc.
Defendant:
[Respondents] States of Connecticut and New York; People of the State of California ex rel. Attorney General Bill Lockyer; States of Iowa, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin; City Of New York; Open Space Institute; Open Space Conservancy; Audubon Society of New Hampshire
Amicus Curiae:
Mountain States Legal Foundation
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
Case History
In July 2004, eight States, New York City, and three private land trusts sued American Electric Power Company Inc., American Electric Power Service Corporation, Southern Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, Xcel Energy, Inc., and Cinergy Corporation alleging that carbon dioxide emissions by the companies have caused environmental degradation, economic injury, and harm. Pursuant to the federal common law of nuisance or state nuisance law, the States demand that the companies cap and then reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. In September 2005, a federal district court in New York dismissed the lawsuit as non-justiciable under the political question doctrine.
In September 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a 139-page opinion, reversed, holding that the political question doctrine did not bar court review of the claims, that all plaintiffs had standing, and that the claims were permitted by federal common law nuisance principles.
After the New York case was filed, three similar tort lawsuits against GHG emitters were filed in Mississippi and California. Although a Supreme Court ruling would address the viability of such lawsuits, various issues are likely to remain unresolved, including whether such future plaintiffs could prove the merits of these types of cases, specifically, liability, causation, and damages. Those issues would have to be addressed in future rulings by trial courts, the courts of appeals, and perhaps even the Supreme Court.
American Electric Power and the other petitioners filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on August 2, 2010. On August 24, 2010, the TVA filed a brief in support of the petition. On September 3, 2010, MSLF filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the petitioners. On December 6, 2010, the Supreme Court granted the petition.
On January 31, 2011, the petitioners and the TVA filed their merits briefs. On February 7, 2011, MSLF filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the petitioners. On March 11, 2011, the respondents filed their response briefs. On April 11, 2011, the petitioners and the TVA filed their reply briefs. On April 19, 2011, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments.