993 F.3d 81
2d Cir.2021Background
- New York City sued five multinational oil companies in federal court (SDNY) alleging public nuisance, private nuisance, and trespass under New York law for damages and abatement costs tied to global greenhouse‑gas (GHG) emissions.
- The complaint alleges the defendants knowingly produced, promoted, and sold fossil fuels that contributed to global warming and damaged NYC (e.g., coastal infrastructure, resiliency costs).
- The district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss; NYC appealed.
- The Second Circuit held the dispute implicates uniquely national and international concerns better addressed by federal law and institutions, not state tort law.
- The court ruled the Clean Air Act displaces federal common‑law claims concerning domestic GHG emissions; extending federal common law to foreign emissions would intrude on foreign policy and the political branches.
- Judgment: the district court’s dismissal with prejudice was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state tort law may govern NYC’s nuisance/trespass claims for global GHG harms | NYC: claims target producers’ production/sale (not regulation of emissions); state law can provide damages without regulating emissions | Producers: the claims necessarily concern global emissions and would functionally regulate conduct across jurisdictions, implicating federal interests | Held: State law claims are displaced by federal common law because the issue demands a uniform federal rule |
| Whether federal common law (if applicable) is displaced by the Clean Air Act for domestic emissions | NYC: seeks damages (not abatement) for production/sale, arguing Clean Air Act does not displace state‑law damages claims | Producers: AEP and related precedent show Clean Air Act speaks directly to GHG regulation and displaces federal common‑law nuisance claims | Held: Clean Air Act displaces federal common‑law claims as to domestic emissions (damages and abatement alike) |
| Whether state‑law claims "snap back" after federal common law is displaced by statute | NYC: displacement of federal common law should allow state‑law claims to proceed unless statute expressly preempts them | Producers: where federal common law applied because state law cannot address the problem, a statute displacing federal common law does not restore the competency of state law absent congressional authorization | Held: State tort claims cannot proceed for domestic emissions because the Clean Air Act does not authorize the nationwide/state‑law theory NYC advances |
| Whether federal common law may provide a remedy for harms caused by foreign (extraterritorial) emissions | NYC: Clean Air Act is silent about foreign emissions; federal common law can fill the gap for foreign harms | Producers: recognizing extraterritorial federal common law would intrude on foreign policy and the political branches; courts should be cautious | Held: Federal common law claims based on foreign emissions are barred by foreign‑policy/extraterritoriality concerns (Kiobel/Jesner principles); courts should defer to political branches |
Key Cases Cited
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) (limits on federal general common law)
- City of Milwaukee v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 91 (1972) (interstate pollution may require federal rules)
- Milwaukee II (United States v. City of Milwaukee), 451 U.S. 304 (1981) (federal common law occupies narrow enclaves; displacement analysis)
- American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011) (Clean Air Act displaces federal common‑law nuisance abatement for domestic GHG emissions)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (EPA authority over greenhouse gases under Clean Air Act)
- Native Vill. of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 696 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2012) (AEP controls; Clean Air Act displaces federal common‑law damages claims)
- Int’l Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481 (1987) (limits on applying non‑source state law to out‑of‑state pollution)
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013) (extraterritoriality and foreign‑policy limits on judicially created causes of action)
- Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 138 S. Ct. 1386 (2018) (judicial caution in creating or extending extraterritorial causes of action)