Kivalina v. ExxonMobil

An Alaskan Inupiat village of about 400 residents sued 24 large energy and fossil fuel companies, seeking money to relocate their village which was threatened by rising seas, reduced sea ice, and thawing permafrost. The costs of relocation were estimated between $95 and $400 million.

Background
The Village of Kivalina, a self-governing, federally recognized tribe of Inupiat Native Alaskans, depends on sea ice to shield them from coastal storms. In the early 2000s, the sea ice started to form later in the year, attach later than usual, break up earlier, and was thinner and covered much less surface area. The destruction of sea ice combined with erosion and future storms means buildings and critical infrastructure faced imminent devastation. The Village would have to relocate if it wanted to save itself, a costly and time-consuming process. The Village attributed the erosion of sea ice to global warming, caused by the named "Energy Producers" in the case, a group of 24 oil, energy, and utility companies with significant contributions to greenhouse emissions. They sued in 2008 under the federal common tort law of public nuisance. With the public nuisance claim, the Village contended that the Energy Producers' actions constitute a "substantial and unreasonable interference with public rights, including the rights to use and enjoy public and private property".

Relevant Law and Principles

 * Federal Common Law, Nuisance
 * Clean Air Act

Ruling
The original case filed in the Federal District Court was dismissed. The Court held that the question of addressing climate change was a political question not appropriate for a federal trial court to decide. Additionally, the court decided that evaluating the nuisance claim would mean "determining an acceptable limit" on greenhouse gas emissions and deciding who should bear the cost of global warming.

Kivalina appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the lower court's dismissal. In its affirmation, the Court also stated that because there was federal legislation on greenhouse gas emissions (the Clean Air Act), the Village couldn't use federal tort law to achieve the same purpose. The Village appealed again to the Supreme Court of the United States, which denied the petition without comment.

Takeaways
This case, combined with a previous Supreme Court case, American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, signaled the end of the use of tort law to seek relief for greenhouse gas emissions-related harms. In American Electric Power Co., the Court decided that federal common law claims seeking emissions caps against specific sources of greenhouse gases are "displaced" by the Clean Air Act whereas the Kivalina case asked for monetary relief. The Courts in both cases emphasized the legislative avenue for climate change relief instead of judicial because common law claims, no matter the type of relief sought, are displaced by existing legislation--even if litigants feel the existing legislation is not enough. The case meant receiving relief for emissions harms would become much harder.

Links

 * Kivalina Demographic Info
 * Case Summary, Public Land & Resources Law Review
 * Analysis of Nuisance Claims for GHG Emissions