Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.: The end of “climate change” tort litigation?

Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.: The end of “climate change” tort litigation?

Vol. 44 No. 3

Quin M. Sorenson is a partner at Sidley Austin LLP, and represented defendants in Kivalina, as well as AEP and Comer.

The decision of the Ninth Circuit in Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 696 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2012), dealt another blow to recent attempts to use the federal common law tort system to address issues relating to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The Supreme Court held last year, in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527 (2011) (AEP), that federal common law claims seeking emissions caps against “major” sources of greenhouse gases are displaced by the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Court held that federal common law could not proceed because the CAA sets forth a method to address these issues, through U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) action, and thereby left no room for a parallel track of regulation through common law litigation. The Ninth Circuit held in Kivalina that the same reasoning also precludes federal common law claims seeking monetary damages, rather than injunctive relief. Together, these cases might spell the end of climate change tort litigation in the federal courts.

Advertisement

  • About Trends

  • More Information

  • Contact Us

The Law of Adaptation to Climate Change: United States and International Aspects