SCOTUS Sides with Emitters in Major Global Warming Case

Photo by mdmarkus66, <a href="">via Flickr</a>.

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

On Monday, the Supreme Court released a unanimous decision siding with a group of utilities that environmental groups and states wanted to sue for their contribution to global warming. In American Electric Power v. Connecticut, the five biggest emitters in the United States asked SCOTUS to dismiss a suit first filed back in 2004.

The states and a group of land trusts sought to hold the unities accountable for global warming under federal common nuisance law, arguing that their emissions presented a threat to the health and safety of others and that they should be forced to begin reducing those emissions. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court, argued that the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations under the Clean Air Act supersedes the states’ claim. Basically, since the EPA is already on the case, this suit is moot.

Those EPA regulations came about because of the 2007 SCOTUS decision in Massachusetts v. EPA that forced the agency to begin the process of issuing greenhouse gas regulations. Those regulations began rolling out this year—albeit slowly. The argument from the states and land trusts, though, was that those regulations won’t affect the biggest, oldest polluters for some time (if ever, considering that those rules still have yet to be issued), and that this lawsuit provided a backstop should the EPA’s regulations prove insufficient.

The SCOTUS decision was not a big surprise. The thing to keep in mind, though, is that some of the utilities arguing here that EPA’s regulations make the case moot are the same ones who have waged war on those EPA regulations. American Electric Power has been particularly aggressive on that front, and its allies in Congress have sought to eliminate the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. As Michael B. Gerrard, director of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, points out on their blog, “if Congress takes away EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs but does not explicitly bar federal common law nuisance claims, these cases will come back.”

So while the SCOTUS decision shuts down this particular pursuit for the time being, don’t expect the litigation on greenhouse gas regulations to go away any time soon.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend