climate change litigation
What Next for the Climate Tort Cases?
Cases against the oil companies are back to state court. It’s time to map out the next steps.
With the Supreme Court’s refusal to take up the issue, the lawsuits against the oil industry are heading back to state court. That’s where the plaintiffs wanted those cases from the beginning, but it’s by no means the last of the issues they will confront. The oil companies will fight a scorched earth campaign, spending …
Continue reading “What Next for the Climate Tort Cases?”
CONTINUE READINGA Climate Trial in Montana Sets the Scene for More
Held v. Montana is the first of many climate lawsuits by youth plaintiffs to go to trial. Big Sky Country is a fitting forum for this phase of climate change litigation.
Young people who have the most to lose from climate change have filed lawsuits in all 50 states, but the first of these cases to go to trial will be in Montana—unofficially nicknamed “the Last Best Place”—which may be the perfect venue for a landmark trial about government culpability for the global climate crisis. Starting …
Continue reading “A Climate Trial in Montana Sets the Scene for More”
CONTINUE READINGDo Climate Change Cases Belong in Federal Court? The Biden Administration Weighs In.
In a very narrowly argued brief, the Administration calls for returning the cases to state court.
The Biden Administration, at the Supreme Court’s invitation, has now filed a brief giving its views about current lawsuits against oil companies. The gist of the brief is that the cases belong in state court., and that the Court should let that happen rather than stepping into the litigation. The brief is right about that, …
CONTINUE READINGAppeals Court Nixes NYC Climate Lawsuit
With a clever if contrived argument, the Second Circuit tries to eliminate climate change litigation.
On Friday, the Second Circuit issued an important decision in a lawsuit against the oil industry. New York City had sued the oil companies for harms relating to climate change. The appeals court ordered the case dismissed, on the ground that any harm relating to fossil fuel is exclusively regulated by the Clean Air Act. …
Continue reading “Appeals Court Nixes NYC Climate Lawsuit”
CONTINUE READINGGuest Contributors Matt Lifson, Camila Bustos, and Natasha Brunstein: Redressability of Climate Change Injuries after Juliana
Juliana Litigation’s Disappointing Result Leaves Room for Future Climate Plaintiffs to Allege Redressable Injuries
In the landmark Juliana litigation, the youth plaintiffs sought a judicial decree telling the federal government to develop and implement a plan to do its part to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm. The Ninth Circuit dismissed Juliana, holding that the youth plaintiffs’ constitutional and public trust claims were not redressable by an Article …
CONTINUE READINGInternational Liability for Harm: Epidemics and Pollution
What duties do countries have to avoid causing global harms?
There’s been talk lately of demanding compensation if a country’s negligence allowed a disease to spread globally. There is a long history of discussion regarding similar damage claims in international environmental law. The same principles seem applicable to disease spread. In theory, damages should be available in both cases. The core principle of international liability …
Continue reading “International Liability for Harm: Epidemics and Pollution”
CONTINUE READINGGuest Contributors Rosa Hayes and Samantha Peltz: Silver Linings in the 9th Circuit’s Juliana Decision
Juliana Litigation Provides Clues for Establishing Standing in Future Cases
For many aspiring environmental litigators, such as ourselves, the bold Juliana litigation was the little-case-that-could: it presented a novel constitutional theory to redress the climate crisis, survived a motion to dismiss against all odds, and went up to the Supreme Court not once, but twice. But on January 17, 2020, Juliana hit a significant roadblock …
CONTINUE READINGWhat’s Wrong with Juliana (and What’s Right?)
The odds against the “children’s case” are bad and getting worse. But there’s a valid insight at its core.
Juliana v. United States, often called the “children’s case,” is an imaginative effort to make the federal government responsible for its role in promoting the production and use of fossil fuels and its failure to control carbon emissions. They ask the court to “declare the United States’ current environmental policy infringes their fundamental rights, direct the …
Continue reading “What’s Wrong with Juliana (and What’s Right?)”
CONTINUE READINGClimate Change in the Courts
What’s next in climate change litigation?
There are three important climate lawsuits pending in federal court. Here’s the state of play and what to expect next. In the first case, Oakland and San Francisco sued leading oil companies. They claim that the companies’ production and sale of fossil fuels is a public nuisance under California state law. They seek an abatement …
Continue reading “Climate Change in the Courts”
CONTINUE READINGNews Flash: 10th Cir. Rebukes Government Over Coal Leases
Today’s important ruling on standing, public lands, and climate change
In an important ruling this morning, the Tenth Circuit rejected the government’s assertion that it could ignore carbon emissions tied to renewing coal leases. In WildEarth Guardians v. BLM, the court also rejected the mining company’s attack on the standing of environmental groups to raise this claim.The mines in question are in the Powder River …
Continue reading “News Flash: 10th Cir. Rebukes Government Over Coal Leases”
CONTINUE READING