325 F. Supp. 3d 1017
N.D. Cal.2018Background
- Cities of Oakland and San Francisco sued five major investor-owned fossil‑fuel producers (Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips) alleging public nuisance from defendants' worldwide production and sale of fossil fuels, causing CO2 emissions and sea‑level rise.
- Plaintiffs seek an abatement fund and damages to address anticipated coastal flooding; they amended complaints to assert federal common‑law public nuisance and corresponding state claims.
- District court previously ruled federal common law governed the claims (denying remand) because the nuisance implicates navigable U.S. waters and global conduct.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; parties agree on the underlying science but dispute legal reach and remedies.
- Court framed the central legal questions as (a) whether federal common law can supply relief given statutory/regulatory displacement and (b) whether recognizing such a claim would intrude on political‑branch foreign‑policy and national‑energy decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal common law nuisance governs/permits relief for harms from worldwide sale of fossil fuels | Federal common law applies and can provide damages/abatement for public nuisance tied to global warming effects within U.S. territory | Federal common law should not be extended; displacement, foreign‑policy, and separation‑of‑powers concerns bar such a remedy | Dismissed: federal common law remedy not available here due to separation‑of‑powers and foreign‑relations concerns (displacement also forecloses analogous claims) |
| Whether Clean Air Act / EPA displacement precludes federal common law claims based on fuels sold (including fuels burned abroad) | Plaintiffs contend sale (not emissions) distinguishes this case from AEP/Kivalina and avoids displacement | Defendants contend AEP/Kivalina bar federal common‑law nuisance tied to greenhouse gas emissions; courts should defer to EPA and Congress | Court: if only distinction is sale vs. emissions, AEP/Kivalina still apply; moreover, foreign‑conduct dimension raises additional separation‑of‑powers/foreign‑policy bar |
| Whether adjudicating these claims would improperly intrude on foreign affairs and political‑branch prerogatives | Plaintiffs say damages/abatement do not require courts to craft international policy and can avoid weighing utility | Defendants (and government amici) argue suits would adjudicate and effectively control extraterritorial energy policy, implicating many sovereigns and diplomatic coordination | Held: recognition of such claims would intrude on foreign relations and national policymaking; courts must defer to legislative/executive branches |
| Justiciability and scope: Can courts balance utility of fossil‑fuel commerce vs. global harms in nuisance analysis? | Plaintiffs assert harms are severe enough to be unreasonable as a matter of law or compensable under Restatement §826(b) without weighing utility | Defendants argue the balancing is a policy‑laden question involving national energy needs, economic disruption, and international allocation of harms/benefits | Held: balancing and nationwide/international allocation are political questions or require policy judgments for which courts must defer; remedy must come from political branches, not federal common law |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (Clean Air Act and EPA authority can displace federal common‑law nuisance claims addressing greenhouse‑gas emissions)
- Native Vill. of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 696 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2012) (applied AEP displacement logic to limit damages claims for past emissions)
- Sosa v. Alvarez‑Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (Sup. Ct. 2004) (courts must exercise caution in creating causes of action under federal common law when foreign affairs are implicated)
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (presumption against extraterritoriality constrains judicially created causes of action with foreign‑conduct reach)
- Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 138 S. Ct. 1386 (Sup. Ct. 2018) (courts should be cautious in recognizing causes of action under federal common law that affect foreign policy)