AEP v. Connecticut
Encyclopedia
AEP v. Connecticut is a United States Supreme Court case. Although the case is about whether states can seek to curtail greenhouse gas emissions from utilities across state borders using federal common law theories of interstate nuisance, the ultimate issue facing the Court was whether climate change regulations and related issues can be decided through the court system while the EPA is finalizing regulations that the Court previously held the Environmental Protection Agency must issue (see Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
).
On Monday, June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision (Justice Sotomayor recused herself). The Court held that until and unless the EPA acts inappropriately or errs (e.g. when it finally issues its mandated regulations in 2012), the EPA (and the equivalent agencies at the state and local level, to the extent allowed under the law) is responsible--not the courts--for overseeing and enforcing any regulations or changes to the regulations regarding climate change.
The syllabus to the Court's decision notes that although federal courts could resolve the issue of curtailing greenhouse gas emissions, the imminent release of EPA regulations designed to implement Congressionally enacted legislation would displace the court's opinion; consequently, the ability of the courts to respond to the problem is foreclosed, and the Plaintiffs must wait for the EPA's regulations before bringing suit.
The Court did not address the Plaintiffs' state law tort
claims, noting that the parties had not briefed them. Moreover, the Court noted that resolution of those claims turns on whether the Clean Air Act
preempts state law, a question best resolved on remand.
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 , is a U.S. Supreme Court case decided 5-4 in which twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency to force that federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide...
).
On Monday, June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision (Justice Sotomayor recused herself). The Court held that until and unless the EPA acts inappropriately or errs (e.g. when it finally issues its mandated regulations in 2012), the EPA (and the equivalent agencies at the state and local level, to the extent allowed under the law) is responsible--not the courts--for overseeing and enforcing any regulations or changes to the regulations regarding climate change.
The syllabus to the Court's decision notes that although federal courts could resolve the issue of curtailing greenhouse gas emissions, the imminent release of EPA regulations designed to implement Congressionally enacted legislation would displace the court's opinion; consequently, the ability of the courts to respond to the problem is foreclosed, and the Plaintiffs must wait for the EPA's regulations before bringing suit.
The Court did not address the Plaintiffs' state law tort
Tort
A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a wrong that involves a breach of a civil duty owed to someone else. It is differentiated from a crime, which involves a breach of a duty owed to society in general...
claims, noting that the parties had not briefed them. Moreover, the Court noted that resolution of those claims turns on whether the Clean Air Act
Clean Air Act
A Clean Air Act is one of a number of pieces of legislation relating to the reduction of airborne contaminants, smog and air pollution in general. The use by governments to enforce clean air standards has contributed to an improvement in human health and longer life spans...
preempts state law, a question best resolved on remand.
External links
- The Second Circuit Appeals Court's opinion in the case
- Coverage of the case by SCOTUSblogSCOTUSblogSCOTUSblog is a law blog written by lawyers and law students about the Supreme Court of the United States . The blog is sponsored by Bloomberg Law. The blog's first post occurred October 1, 2002. The blog moved to its current address on February 7, 2005. In the same year, it was featured by...
- Onthedocket.org's coverage of the case