Native Village of Kivalina v. Exxonmobil Corporation
696 F.3d 849
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Kivalina alleges massive greenhouse gas emissions by Energy Producers cause global warming, eroding the land of the City of Kivalina and possibly destroying it.
- Kivalina sues for federal common law public nuisance damages (and conspiracy claims) in district court.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1)/(6), arguing political-question and standing defects.
- District court held the public nuisance claim displaced by federal statutory regime and lacked Article III standing; dismissed with prejudice as to federal claims.
- Court of appeals reviews de novo and ultimately affirms displacement under Supreme Court precedent; concurrence addresses standing and traces of causation.
- Concurrence separately asserts Kivalina lacks standing to sue private parties for damages from historical, global emissions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the CAA displacement apply to damages claims as well as injunctive relief? | Kivalina argues CAA does not foreclose federal nuisance damages. | AEP framework shows CAA displaced federal nuisance actions, including damages. | Displacement applies to damages claims as well as injunctive relief. |
| Is federal common law public nuisance damages viable after displacement? | Plaintiff contends damages remain viable under federal common law. | Displacement eliminates federal common law nuisance remedies entirely. | Federal common law nuisance damages are displaced; state law remedies may apply where not preempted. |
| Does Kivalina have Article III standing to bring suit against Energy Producers? | Kivalina asserts injury traceable to defendants' emissions and redressable by court. | Injury is too attenuated and not fairly traceable to specific defendants; injury is global and historical. | Kivalina lacks standing; causal chain too attenuated to affirmatively link to particular defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (Supreme Court 2007) (gases are air pollutants subject to EPA regulation under CAA)
- American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527 (Supreme Court 2011) (CAA displacement of federal common law public nuisance)
- Milwaukee II, 451 U.S. 304 (Supreme Court 1981) (Congress occupies field; displacement of federal nuisance abatement action)
- Milwaukee I, 406 U.S. 91 (Supreme Court 1972) (addressed displacement framework and regulatory licensing in interstate pollution)
- Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Ass'n., 453 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1981) (displacement of nuisance claims for injunctive relief in pollution cases)
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (Supreme Court 2008) (remedies cannot be severed from their causes of action; damages vs. penalties discussion)
- Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238 (Supreme Court 1984) (severability of remedies and preemption considerations in federal regulation context)