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
-
New Report Outlines Market-Based Reforms for Montana’s Water Future
As drought, growth, and competing demands strain Montana’s water supplies, PERC offers practical reforms to strengthen water rights, expand voluntary water trading, and modernize water management
-
Modernizing Montana Water Policy
A practical reform agenda for unlocking Montana’s water markets
-
The Roadless Rule and Wildfire Management
More targeted policy could better balance costs and benefits across different landscapes