American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut
564 U.S. 410
SCOTUS2011Background
- Plaintiffs—several States, New York City, and three private land trusts—filed federal nuisance complaints in 2004 seeking to cap and steadily reduce CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel power plants operated by four private companies and TVA.
- Lawsuits allege defendants’ CO2 emissions cause substantial public-rights interference and environmental/habitat harms, seeking injunctive relief to cap emissions in a fixed initial amount with annual reductions.
- District court dismissed as nonjusticiable under the political-question doctrine; the Second Circuit reversed, allowing federal-common-law nuisance claims to proceed.
- Court of Appeals held, for purposes of this case, that federal common law governing interstate nuisance was not displaced by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA action.
- Supreme Court grants certiorari to resolve whether the CAA displaces federal common-law nuisance and, if displaced, whether EPA action can address plaintiffs’ relief requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Clean Air Act displace federal common-law public nuisance claims? | Plaintiffs argue federal nuisance law remains available; displacement only if EPA acts. | Petitioners contend CAA/EPA regulation occupies the field and displaces federal common law. | The CAA and EPA actions displace federal common-law nuisance claims. |
| Is there standing under Massachusetts v. EPA to challenge EPA regulation of greenhouse gases? | Massachusetts-like standing allows challenge to EPA’s denial to regulate GHGs. | Standing is not clear for private land trusts and others; some justiciability issues. | Court affirms the Second Circuit’s jurisdiction; standing was not resolved on the merits by a majority. |
| Is it permissible for federal judges to set emissions limits under federal nuisance law instead of EPA? | Judges should determine what emission level is unreasonable and feasible. | EPA is the expert regulator; court intervention should be limited. | Judges may not set emissions limits where EPA is empowered to regulate; displacement by EPA is required. |
| What is the proper framework for displacement—whether field occupancy suffices regardless of timing? | Displacement should depend on EPA’s eventual action, not mere potential regulation. | Displacement occurs when the field is occupied by a regulatory regime, regardless of timing. | Displacement occurs because EPA is delegated to regulate CO2 emissions under the CAA; judicial decrees are improper. |
| What about state-law nuisance claims post-displacement? | State-law claims should be available to supplement or substitute when federal law displaced. | Displacement may preclude state-law nuisance claims. | Remanded to address state-law claims consistent with displacement ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208 (1901) (recognizing state-to-state nuisance disputes in federal courts)
- New Jersey v. City of New York, 283 U.S. 473 (1931) (allowing interjurisdictional federal nuisance enforcement)
- Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 240 U.S. 650 (1916) (interstate pollution relief against private polluters)
- Milwaukee I, 406 U.S. 91 (1972) (recognizing federal common law to abate interstate pollution (earlier era))
- Milwaukee II, 451 U.S. 304 (1981) (displacement analysis: statute speaks to question; EPA regulation displaces federal common law)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (recognizing greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Act and EPA authority to regulate)