{"id":7299,"date":"2021-04-09T12:10:37","date_gmt":"2021-04-09T17:10:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=7299"},"modified":"2021-05-19T15:18:24","modified_gmt":"2021-05-19T20:18:24","slug":"april-2021-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2021\/04\/09\/april-2021-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts\/","title":{"rendered":"April 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

By Margaret Barry and Korey Silverman-Roati<\/em><\/p>\n

Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our\u00a0U.S<\/a>.\u00a0and\u00a0non-U.S.<\/a> climate litigation charts.<\/p>\n

If you know of any cases we have missed, please email us at columbiaclimate@gmail.com.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE\u00a0CLIMATE\u00a0CASE\u00a0CHART<\/a> SINCE UPDATE # 144.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Some of these updates may not appear on the chart right away due to a technical issue.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Creative Commons, NYC Manhattan Skyline<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

FEATURED CASE<\/strong><\/p>\n

Second Circuit Rejected New York City\u2019s State Law Climate Claims Against Oil Companies<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of New York City\u2019s lawsuit seeking climate change damages from oil companies.\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 The Second Circuit\u2019s decision largely followed the reasoning of the district court\u2019s 2018 decision. First, the Second Circuit held that federal common law displaced the City\u2019s state-law public nuisance, private nuisance, and trespass claims because the lawsuit would regulate cross-border greenhouse gas emissions, albeit \u201cin an indirect and roundabout manner,\u201d and because state law claims \u201cwould further risk upsetting the careful balance that has been struck between the prevention of global warming, a project that necessarily requires national standards and global participation, on the one hand, and energy production, economic growth, foreign policy, and national security, on the other.\u201d The Second Circuit then held that the Clean Air Act, in turn, displaced federal common law claims related to domestic emissions. The Second Circuit cited\u00a0American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut<\/em>, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), as establishing \u201cbeyond cavil\u201d that the Clean Air Act displaced federal common law nuisance suits to abate domestic transboundary greenhouse gas emissions, and found that\u00a0Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.<\/em>, 696 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2012), provided \u201csound reasoning\u201d for determining that the Clean Air Act also displaced federal common law damages claims. The Second Circuit also rejected New York City\u2019s contention that the Clean Air Act\u2019s displacement of federal common law claims resuscitated its state law common law claims. Finally, the Second Circuit held that although the Clean Air Act did not displace New York\u2019s federal common law claims addressing emissions outside the United States, foreign policy concerns foreclosed such claims. The Second Circuit said holding the oil companies liable for \u201cpurely foreign activity\u201d would \u201csow confusion and needlessly complicate the nation\u2019s foreign policy, while clearly infringing on the prerogatives of the political branches.\u201d\u00a0City of New York v. BP p.l.c.<\/a><\/em>, No. 18-2188 (2d Cir. Apr. 1, 2021).<\/p>\n

DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ninth Circuit Declined to Stay Remand Order in Honolulu and Maui Cases<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied fossil fuel companies\u2019 emergency motions for stay pending appeal of a district court order remanding cases brought by the City and County of Honolulu and the County of Maui seeking climate change damages. The Ninth Circuit found that the companies failed to establish irreparable injury with arguments regarding increased litigation burdens, possible inefficiencies, and the possibility that a state court could \u201cirrevocably\u201d adjudicate the plaintiffs\u2019 claims while the appeals were pending. The Ninth Circuit also found that the companies did not make a sufficient showing on the merits, given the Ninth Circuit\u2019s decisions in\u00a0County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c.<\/em>\u00a0City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP<\/em><\/a>, No. 21-15313 (9th Cir. Mar. 13, 2021);\u00a0County of Maui v. Chevron USA Inc.<\/em><\/a>, No. 21-15318 (9th Cir. Mar. 13, 2021).<\/p>\n

D.C. and Minnesota Federal Courts Remanded Climate Cases Against Fossil Fuel Industry<\/strong><\/p>\n

Two federal district courts\u2014in Minnesota and the District of Columbia\u2014granted motions to remand cases brought by plaintiffs against the fossil fuel industry.<\/p>\n