American Electric Power Company, Inc. v. Connecticut case brief summary
131 S.Ct. 2527 (2011)
DISCUSSION
The Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) actions it authorized displaced any federal common law right to seek the relief sought.
The Clean Air Act referred directly to the types of emissions in this case.
The statute directed the EPA to list different categories of air pollution and establish emission standards.
At the time, the EPA was doing this for greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fired with fossil-fuel.
The act itself provides a means to seek limits on the emissions, which is the same relief that the respondents are seeking by invoking the federal common law.
Congress had delegated to the EPA the decision of whether and how to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants.
The delegation is what displaced the federal common law.
The judgments that the respondents would commit to the federal judges could not be decided with the decision-making scheme that was enacted by Congress.
The court stated that it was error to find that the federal judges could set limits on greenhouse gas emissions in the fact of a law that empowers the EPA to set the same limits, subject to judicial review only in order to ensure against arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful action under the statute.
CONCLUSION
The Second Circuit's exercise of jurisdiction was affirmed.
The Supreme Court was equally divided.
The judgment of the Second Circuit that claims under the federal common law of nuisance were stated and that the Clean Air Act did not "displace" federal common law was reversed.
The case was remanded.
This was a 6-0 Decision with 1 concurrence.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
131 S.Ct. 2527 (2011)
CASE SYNOPSIS
The respondents in this case filed federal common law public nuisance claims against the power companies (petitioners).
The respondents asked the court to set carbon-dioxide emissions.
The respondents comprise several states, land trusts, and a city.
The Second Circuit court of appeals reversed a dismissal, holding that the respondents had standing, that the nuisance claims were adequately stated and the Clean Air Act did not displace the federal common law.
The court granted Certiorari.
The respondents in this case filed federal common law public nuisance claims against the power companies (petitioners).
The respondents asked the court to set carbon-dioxide emissions.
The respondents comprise several states, land trusts, and a city.
The Second Circuit court of appeals reversed a dismissal, holding that the respondents had standing, that the nuisance claims were adequately stated and the Clean Air Act did not displace the federal common law.
The court granted Certiorari.
DISCUSSION
The Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) actions it authorized displaced any federal common law right to seek the relief sought.
The Clean Air Act referred directly to the types of emissions in this case.
The statute directed the EPA to list different categories of air pollution and establish emission standards.
At the time, the EPA was doing this for greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fired with fossil-fuel.
The act itself provides a means to seek limits on the emissions, which is the same relief that the respondents are seeking by invoking the federal common law.
Congress had delegated to the EPA the decision of whether and how to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants.
The delegation is what displaced the federal common law.
The judgments that the respondents would commit to the federal judges could not be decided with the decision-making scheme that was enacted by Congress.
The court stated that it was error to find that the federal judges could set limits on greenhouse gas emissions in the fact of a law that empowers the EPA to set the same limits, subject to judicial review only in order to ensure against arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful action under the statute.
CONCLUSION
The Second Circuit's exercise of jurisdiction was affirmed.
The Supreme Court was equally divided.
The judgment of the Second Circuit that claims under the federal common law of nuisance were stated and that the Clean Air Act did not "displace" federal common law was reversed.
The case was remanded.
This was a 6-0 Decision with 1 concurrence.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
. 
No comments:
Post a Comment