US Supreme Court to Hear Climate Change Nuisance Case

Bishop Hill reports that the US  Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether  emitters of greenhouse gases can be sued under a common law nuisance theory.  The Bishop refers to the SCOTUS law blog, which he evidently believes is the Supreme Court's official blog, but it appears to be the Akin Gump law firm's Supreme Court blog (which is very good and worth perusing).  I can't find that entry on the Akin Gump site, so I am reproducing below what the Bishop quoted:

Via the blog of the Supreme Court of the United States comes the news that the court will hear the appeal by five businesses that have been sued under the law of common nuisance for emitting carbon.


five entities that were claimed to be the largest sources of greenhouse gases — four electric power companies and the Tennessee Valley Authority — were sued by eight states, New York City, and three land conservation groups. Their lawsuits were filed under the federal common law of nuisance, a judge-made theory. The Second Circuit agreed that the lawsuit could proceed on that theory. The case, however, has not yet gone to trial.
When the electric generating companies appealed to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department, speaking for TVA, urged the Supreme Court to send the case back to the Circuit Court for another look instead of ruling on it now. The Department argued that the EPA was now moving on several fronts to regulate greenhouses gases under the Clean Air Act, so this activity might displace any claims made under common-law theories. The Court, however, chose on Monday to take on the case itself at this point, presumably with the aim of deciding whether such a nuisance lawsuit may now go forward as a way of attacking global warming.

This is, of course, the lawsuit brought by several northeastern states against TVA and other power generators alleging that they should be held accountable for the emission of greenhouse gases that allegedly contribute to climate change.    This is one report, of the Supreme Court's action yesterday, and I'm sure there are others. It is worth noting that the Second Circuit's decision conflicts with the Fourth Circuit's decison in a case brought by North Carolina that such emissions are not public nusiances. Here is the New York Times take on  that case.