United States Supreme Court Case Analysis - Term Paper Example

Case American Elec. Power CO. v. CONNECTICUT, No. 10-174 . The Supreme Court ruling and its effects on the future of greenhouse gas emissions aimed at protecting the environment. Citation: Supreme Court of the United States, cited on the 21st November, 2011 from: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-174.pdf The facts The state of Connecticut has sought to curb the carbon gases emission citing that it was a nuisance to the public thus having drastic effects on business and employment in the electric power companies. The effects are drastic as a result of the increased global warming that has led to environmental destruction. The resolving of the cases involving the destruction of the environment by the power plants with carbon dioxide and other green house gases is not limited to the political arena. The plaintiff, which includes the states and the public, has the right to bring claims against the private sector on the neglect of the Clean Air Act if the Environment Protection agency fails in its part in the regulation of the emission of the gases by the power plants1. History Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company, Inc. case was since filed by 8 states in 2004. This involved the New York City and 3 private petitioner environmental organizations up against the activities of an assortment of electric service companies. It was asserted by 2 complainants public nuisance under the state common law and the federal law as claims and argued that the natural resources as well as the human health will continue to suffer under the adverse effects of global warming. The plaintiff sought for the courts to have a resolution that would have the companies their carbon dioxide emanations. It was argued by the plaintiff that the power companies infringed on the public rights through the violation of the national common law of interstate nuisance or the alternative state tort law2. The plaintiff sought a decree that would set emissions of carbon dioxide and other green house gases for each of the defendants at the initial cap to be reduced annually. The complainants were dismissed by the district court in New York which was presiding over the case on the view that the case raised political inquiries that were thought to be inappropriate for a judicial resolution. It was argued by the court that the issues on climate change that had been presented by the plaintiff would require a delicate balancing of the environment, foreign, economic policies and the interests of the national security. This, the court argued that would be better handled by the political branch of the government rather than the judicial3, arguing further that ruling on such a matter would be tantamount to the court abrogating the role of the Congress to set legislations and standards for hearing such a case. The Supreme Court in 2007 ruled over the Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S., 497 that the standards for the green house gas emissions are to be set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA had offered no explanation as to why they failed to oblige to their duties. Various rule-making activities by EPA were commenced targeting green house gas emissions. The court ruling was since reversed by a second circuit jury that included the then Judge of Sotomayor in 21st of September 2009 that the nuisance claims stated by the plaintiff were actionable. Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co., 582 F.3d 309 (2d Cir. 2009)4. The court held the fact that the Clean Air Act gives authority to the regulation of the green house gas emissions and carbon dioxide. The court also argued that the Environmental Protection Agency had misinterpreted the Act by denying the rulemaking decision that was seeking the control of the emissions from the newly manufactured motor vehicles. This instilled the commencement of a ruling under section 111 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 7411, that seeks to set limits on the emission of green house gases from the new, existing and modified plants powered by fossil fuel. The lawsuit began way before the Environment Protection Agency commenced efforts that aimed at the regulation of green house gas emissions. The political question policy used by the district court in New York to dismiss the plaintiff and claimed that a well established case in relation to the public nuisance and the tort case law. This implied that the Clean Air Act in this context did not displace the federal common law. A certiorari was granted by the United States Supreme court on December 6, 2010. Among the issues that the Supreme court settled on included the relevant standing that the plaintiff had to sue the electric power companies by seeking the reduction of green house gas emissions, whether the claims by the plaintiff constitute political questions that are better left for the executive or legislative arms of the government to settle and if the efforts by the EPA and the congress in relation to the regulation of the green house gas emissions had ground to displace the plaintiffs and their ability to have the power companies be sued under the nuisance claims of the common law. Issue The Supreme Court had to rule on the below listed issues: The Political Question Doctrine The constitutional standing The public nuisance claim Holding The motion to dismiss the claims by the plaintiff and allowed the case to proceed. The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff could not bring an action under the federal common law as the Clean Air Act role is delegated to the Environmental Protection agency vested with the authority to manage the emission of carbon dioxide and other green house gases. A parallel action to this is available to the plaintiff under the federal common law. The claims were also deferred to the Environmental agency for action as it was better equipped to decide the matter than the federal judges on how strictly they are to be in the regulation of the rules that on the emission of gases in to the environment. It was also noted by the court that the plaintiffs are not to be with any recourse. The Clean Air act permits to any person to take civil enforcement actions to the federal courts. The plaintiff is able to seek the recourse under the federal law in the appeal courts and could ultimately seek for a certiorari in the appeal court. Reasoning The court was divided equally (4-4) in relation to the threshold question that had to decide on whether the federal courts had jurisdiction over the laws suits in relation to the emissions of carbon dioxide and other green house gases. The court also had to decide on whether the issues by the complainant were political or needed the officiating of the judicial wing of the government. The court had to give reasons beyond reasonable doubt as to whether the court had the ability to make a ruling on the claims. If the case was political, then the claims could not be solved in the court as it lacked the jurisdiction mandate. He court had to decide the federal ruling on the common law in respect to the state common law of nuisance as well as to whether it is displaced by the Clean Air act. Since the United States of America Supreme Court was divided evenly, based on the rules of the court, it was held by the ruling that the suits of the global warming which were claims by the plaintiff fell under the federal courts jurisdictions and are not political questions that the courts are not able to rule on. The court further held that since the Clean Air Act seeks to provide the limits to the reduction of the carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gas emissions is in line with what the claims by the plaintiff by invoking the federal common law. The act seeks to provide limits to the emission of the carbon dioxide and the other green house gases that are perceived to be behind destruction of the environment resulting to the increase in the global temperatures that are being witnessed in the nation and other neighboring areas. The judge noted that: “The Act’s prescribed order of decision making—first by the expert agency, and then by federal judges—is yet another reason to resist setting emissions standards by judicial decree under federal tort law. The appropriate amount of regulation in a particular greenhouse gas-producing sector requires informed assessment of competing interests. The Clean Air Act entrusts such complex balancing to EPA in the first instance, in combination with state regulators5.” The court also argued that the federal common law is not displaced not until the Environment Protection Agency exercises its obligations as provided for by the Clean Air Act. The EPA is to do this by setting up rules and regulations that are aimed at governing the emissions of carbon dioxide and other green house gases into the environment by the defendant’s plants. The legislative displacement can only occur if the field has been occupied in a manner stipulated or intended by the law. The court made a ruling based on the plaintiff in regards to the constitution as per their claims. The standing doctrine requires to proof if the plaintiff are or will be injured because of the emissions of the defendants. The court ruled that the owners of the properties, the cities and the states whose lands are suffering the damaging effects of the defendants. The public nuisance claimed under the federal common law as alleged by the plaintiff was successful. The sovereignty concerns weighed in favor of the landowners and the states who in this case were suing private entities. The federal nuisance actions were not limited by the constitutional necessity6. Work cited Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, 585 F.3d 855 (5th Cir. 2009) (reinstating nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims against greenhouse gas emitters for damages caused by Hurricane Katrina but denying standing to bring unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy claims), panel decision vacated and rehearing en banc granted, No. 07-60756, 2010 WL 685796 (5th Cir. Feb. 26, 2010), order directing clerk to dismiss appeal (May 28, 2010). George W. Pugh, the Federal Declaratory Remedy: Justifiability, Jurisdiction and Related Problems, 6 Vand. L. Rev. 79, 86 (1952).  2011 WL 2437011, at *4 (citing Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496-66,535 (Dec. 15, 2009)). Erwin Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction § 2.6, at 149 n.7 (5th ed. 2007) Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co., 582 F.3d 309 (2d Cir. 2009), reversing406 F.Supp.2d 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), cert. granted, Dec. 6, 2010. House Votes to Block EPA From Regulating Greenhouse Gases, THE HUFFINGTON POST ( Feb. 18, 2011 2:28 PM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/18/house-votes-to-block-epa-_n_825259.html?view=print; see, e.g,, H.R. 199 (Jan. 6, 2011). Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 663 F. Supp. 2d 863 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2009) (dismissing nuisance claims brought by Native Alaskan village on political question grounds and for lack of standing), appeal filed, No. 09-17490 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2009); California v. General Motors Corp., 2007 WL 2726871 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (not reported) (dismissing nuisance action by state against automakers for climate change on political question grounds), appeal voluntarily dismissed, No. 07-16908 (9th Cir. Jun. 19, 2009). John M. Broder, Senate Rejects Bills to Limit E.P.A.s Emissions Programs, THE NEW YORK TIMES (Apr. 6, 2011),http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/us/politics/07epa.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print. Read More