City Of New York v. Chevron Corporation
993 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir. 2021)
Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Global warming is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity today. Among the scientific community, there is near universal consensus that global warming is primarily caused, or at least accelerated, by the burning of fossil fuels, which emits greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. Once released, those gases can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, where they trap heat that would otherwise radiate into space.
The court caveats the printed statements above in a footnote: Because this appeal arrives before us at the pleading stage, we draw these facts from the complaint and accept them to be true. See Iowa Pub. Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. MF Glob., Ltd., 620 F.3d 137, 139 n.1 (2d Cir. 2010). This method of presentation without any doubt brings into question the integrity of the appellate judges in this case. We don’t remember ever seeing such a method used as it is always preceded in the holding by the footnote in the body of the decision.
P claims it 'is exceptionally vulnerable' to the effects of global warming, such as rising sea levels, because of its '520-mile coastline.' P asserts that its taxpayers should not have to shoulder the burden of financing P's preparations to mitigate the effects of global warming. P suggests that Ds, a group of large fossil fuel producers, are primarily responsible for global warming and should bear the brunt of these costs. P claims that Ds have known for decades that their fossil fuel products pose a severe risk to the planet's climate. P alleges that, despite that knowledge, Ds downplayed the risks and continued to sell massive quantities of fossil fuels, which has caused and will continue to cause significant changes to P's climate and landscape. P sued Ds in federal court, asserting causes of action for (1) public nuisance, (2) private nuisance, and (3) trespass under New York. P sought compensatory damages for the past and future costs of climate-proofing its infrastructure and property, as well as an equitable order ascertaining damages and granting an injunction to abate the public nuisance and trespass that would go into effect should Ds fail to pay the court-ordered damages. Ds filed motions to dismiss the City's complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The district court granted those motions and dismissed P's complaint in its entirety with prejudice. It held that P's state-law claims were displaced by federal common law. It reasoned that transboundary greenhouse gas emissions are, by nature, a national (indeed, international) problem, and therefore must be governed by a unified federal standard. It determined that the Clean Air Act displaced P's common law claims with respect to domestic emissions. It concluded that while the Clean Air Act does not displace claims targeting foreign emissions, judicial caution counseled against permitting P to bring federal common law claims against Ds for foreign greenhouse gas emissions. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co