City of New York v. Chevron Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Property

Propertypublic nuisanceprivate nuisancetrespassfederal common lawpreemptionclimate changeglobal greenhouse gas emissions

Facts

New York City alleged that global warming, driven primarily by greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels, has made the City exceptionally vulnerable to harms such as rising sea levels and has forced it to spend billions on climate resiliency measures. The City sued five major fossil fuel producers under New York nuisance and trespass law, alleging that despite long knowing the climate risks, they continued producing and selling massive quantities of fossil fuels worldwide. The City acknowledged that the producers' conduct was lawful commercial activity and that it could not halt that conduct under any federal statute or international agreement, but sought to shift the costs of climate adaptation to the producers. The claims targeted harms caused by the cumulative impact of emissions released around the globe over many decades, not merely emissions within New York.

Issue

May a municipality use state tort law to hold multinational oil companies liable for damages caused by global greenhouse gas emissions? If not, do federal common law or the Clean Air Act permit such claims as to domestic or foreign emissions?

Rule

When a claim seeks relief for harms caused by interstate or worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, federal common law governs because state law cannot be used where a uniform federal rule and federalism interests are implicated. Congress displaces federal common law when a statute speaks directly to the question, and the Clean Air Act displaces federal common law claims concerning domestic greenhouse gas emissions regardless of whether the plaintiff seeks damages or abatement. State-law claims may survive only to the extent federal statute authorizes them, and the Clean Air Act authorizes at most source-state standards or common-law actions, not a non-source state's attempt to impose its law on worldwide emissions. As to foreign emissions, federal common law should not be extended where doing so would intrude on foreign policy and the prerogatives of the political branches.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The City of Baltimore sues several fuel producers in federal court under Maryland public nuisance law, seeking money damages for the cost of raising seawalls and upgrading storm drains. The complaint alleges the city’s injuries were caused by the cumulative effect of greenhouse gas emissions released worldwide from the combustion of fuels the companies produced and sold over decades.

Which is the strongest argument for dismissal?

Explanation. The majority held that artful pleading cannot recast a suit targeting harms from worldwide greenhouse gas emissions as an ordinary local tort action. Where the claim seeks relief for harms caused by interstate or global emissions, state law conflicts with uniquely federal interests in national uniformity and federalism, so federal common law supplies the rule of decision and displaces non-source-state law. The fact that the plaintiff seeks damages for local adaptation costs does not avoid that conclusion. (Derived from City of New York v. Chevron Corp. (n.d.).)