«As a result of this decision, coal, oil, and natural gas producers could face
federal common law nuisance claims all over the country,» he writes.
In 2011's AEP vs. Connecticut, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals may not file nuisance lawsuits regarding carbon emissions
under federal common law because carbon emissions are already regulated by the Clean Air Act.
His ruling created the possibility that oil companies could be liable under
federal common law for causing a «nuisance.»
Put simply, Plaintiffs seek to
use federal common law to punish the precise conduct that Congress has encouraged for decades — the development of domestic energy supplies...
Strictly speaking, under the «
federal common law» there is no privilege for clergymen; but it is wonderful what «the light of reason and experience» can do!
The Justices thus looked in two clearly opposite directions as they heard more than 75 minutes of argument in American Electric Power, et al., v. Connecticut, et al. (10 - 174),
a federal common law claim against five operators of electricity - generating plants said to be the nation's largest producers of earth - heating «greenhouse gases.»
Crystal S. Chase, The Illinois Central Public Trust Doctrine and
Federal Common Law: An Unconventional View, 16 Hastings W. - Nw.
1944: Partner Theodore Kiendl successfully represents Erie Railroad in the well - publicized Supreme Court case Erie v. Tompkins, in which Justice Louis D. Brandeis formally ends the 90 - year - old doctrine of
a federal common law.
is
a federal common law of crimes unconstitutional?
«Victorious Lawyer in Climate Case Still Critical of Plaintiffs» Strategy»: Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire has an article (via The New York Times) that begins, «The top government lawyer who successfully argued a major climate case before the Supreme Court this year has criticized his erstwhile opponents for claiming states should be able to sue polluters over greenhouse gas emissions under
federal common law.»