American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut
131 S. Ct. 2527
| SCOTUS | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs: several States, New York City, Open Space Institute et al. (land trusts) sue five electric power emitters and TVA for federal common-law public nuisance due to CO2 emissions.
- Emissions context: defendants’ CO2 emissions total ~650 million tons annually, alleging substantial interference with public rights and harm to lands, infrastructure, health, and ecosystems.
- Relief sought: a declaration and injunctive relief capping emissions for each defendant and requiring annual reductions for a decade.
- Legal framework: plaintiffs rely on federal common law of nuisance or state tort law; seek to abate interstate pollution.
- Procedural posture: district court dismissed as non-justiciable; Second Circuit reversed on threshold standing and merits; case granted certiorari by Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Clean Air Act displaces federal common law nuisance claims. | Massachusetts permits regulation of CO2; displacement not yet decided. | CAA and EPA action occupy the field; common law displaced. | CAA and EPA regulation displaces federal common-law nuisance claims. |
| Whether EPA’s regulatory framework must be fully in place before displacement applies. | Displacement should wait until EPA acts. | Displacement occurs when the statute speaks directly, regardless of action status. | Displacement applies; EPA need not have completed rulemaking to displace federal common law. |
| Role of federal courts versus EPA in setting emission limits. | Judges should determine reasonable emissions and reductions. | EPA is the expert regulator and should set standards with judicial review only for legality. | EPA has primary regulatory role; courts cannot set emission limits by tort law decree. |
| Whether state-law nuisance claims remain available after displacement. | State law could still provide remedies independent of federal law. | Displacement by federal statute precludes federal common-law relief; preemption may apply to state-law claims. | State-law claims may be preempted or left for remand; issue left open for remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208 (1901) (recognizes federal common-law actions to abate interstate pollution (pre-Erie context))
- New Jersey v. City of New York, 283 U.S. 473 (1931) (recognizes federal common-law nuisance against out-of-state pollution)
- Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 240 U.S. 650 (1916) (order to curtail pollution harming another state)
- Illinois v. Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 906 (1972) (Milwaukee I; state may sue to abate pollution across state lines)
- Milwaukee II, 451 U.S. 304 (1981) (displacement by Clean Water Act when Congress acted comprehensively)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (CO2 qualifies as air pollutant under CAA; EPA regulation authorized)
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham, 436 U.S. 618 (1978) (statutory displacement test: statute speaks directly to question)