The Yale Law Journal’s new “Summary Judgment” online series features a set of essays on the Supreme Court’s decision in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, in which the Court held unanimously that suits against utilities alleging their emissions of greenhouse gases contribute to the “public nuisance” of global warming under federal common law were displaced by the Clean Air Act. Contributors to the online symposium include Hari Osofsky, Daniel Farber, James May, Maxine Burkett, Michael Gerrard, and yours truly. My contribution, “A Tale of Two Cases” (PDF), discusses how the outcome in AEP was predetermined by the Court’s prior holding in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases were pollutants subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The essay is based on a longer article forthcoming in the Cato Supreme Court Review that I will discuss at the Cato Constitution Day event on Thursday.
Originally posted at The Volokh Conspiracy.A Tale of Two Cases
Date
Topics
Related Content
-
Restoring Rivers Requires Cooperation, not Litigation Shortcuts
An amicus brief in a case before the California Supreme Court case on restoring flows to California’s rivers
-
New Report: Proactive Forest Management Delivers Up to 6x Savings and Billions in Avoided Losses
Peer-reviewed research published in Science underscores economic and ecological case for fuel treatments
-
Beyond Wildfire Suppression
The economic case for fuel treatments on national forests