Supreme Court of the United States · 2011 · Property
PropertyPublic nuisanceFederal common lawEnvironmental regulationfederal common lawpublic nuisancedisplacementClean Air Act
Facts
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were among the largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the United States and that their emissions contributed to global warming. They claimed this caused substantial and unreasonable interference with public rights and sought a decree imposing an initial emissions cap on each defendant, followed by annual reductions. While the suits were pending, EPA began regulating greenhouse gases and commenced a rulemaking under Clean Air Act §111 to set limits for new, modified, and existing fossil-fuel fired power plants. The case concerned whether federal common law nuisance claims could proceed in light of that statutory scheme.
Issue
Whether States, a city, and private land trusts may maintain federal common law public nuisance claims seeking judicially imposed caps on carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants, or whether the Clean Air Act and EPA's delegated regulatory authority displace such claims.
Rule
Federal common law is displaced when Congress has spoken directly to the question at issue. The Clean Air Act, by authorizing EPA to decide whether and how to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants, displaces any federal common law right to seek abatement of those emissions.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
The State of Maryland and the City of Baltimore sue Blue Harbor Generation, a fictional utility operating coal-fired power plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania, in federal district court. They seek an injunction under federal common law public nuisance requiring the company to cap and then gradually reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions, even though the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate emissions from existing fossil-fuel-fired power plants.
What is the strongest argument that the federal common law claim should be dismissed?
Explanation. Federal common law is displaced when Congress addresses the question previously governed by federal common law. The Clean Air Act speaks directly to carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel-fired power plants by delegating to EPA authority to decide whether and how to regulate them under §111. Displacement does not depend on plant-specific standards already being in place. (Derived from American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut (n.d.).)