[StBernard] U.S. Supreme Court Will Not Hear Bogus Global Warming Case

Westley Annis westley at da-parish.com
Tue Jan 11 08:43:25 EST 2011


U.S. Supreme Court Will Not Hear Bogus Global Warming Case
Posted by: Carter Wood under Briefly Legal, Global Warming on January 10,
2011 @ 12:38 pm
The U.S. Supreme Court today denied the petition for mandamus filed by
plaintiffs in one of the major - and preposterous - suits claiming damages
against industry for causing global warming, Comer v. Murphy Oil. (Today's
order list is here.) This should be the end of the case because the
plaintiffs did not file a petition for certiorari, but given how convoluted
the lawsuit's path through the courts has been, perhaps there's a strange
maneuver that could revive it.

As we have summarized at Shopfloor.org, a District Court Judge in
Mississippi held that Mississippi residents could NOT sue power companies
and refineries for damages that resulted from global warming, but a
three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled otherwise on
appeal.

That decision was appealed to the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for en
banc consideration, but after accepting the case, another judge recused
herself because of a conflict of interest, eliminating the court's quorum to
hear the appeal. However, the appellate court had already vacated the lower
court's decision in anticipation of hearing it, so the lawsuit basically
died. The petition for mandamus was an effort to keep the litigation going.

The National Association of Manufacturers' Manufacturing Law Center
summarized the case here. In amicus briefs, we argued:
The plaintiffs, Mississippi residents and property owners, alleged that the
emissions from more than 150 energy and manufacturing companies increased
global warming and contributed to the severity of damages resulting from
Hurricane Katrina. Our brief in support of the appeal argued that the
plaintiffs' theory of liability would dramatically expand tort law beyond
anything ever recognized because of the tenuous link between the alleged
conduct and the alleged harm. In addition, this case involves a complex
regulatory matter requiring the balancing of economic, environmental and
international interests, and is constitutionally the domain of the political
branches of government, not the courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court will still have an opportunity to rule on the
legitimacy of public nuisance claims against power companies for the alleged
harm caused by supposed global warming. In December, the Supreme Court
granted certiorari in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, the federal
common law nuisance case brought by several northeastern states against
power utilities for global warming. The NAM's case summary is here.

[Update: I quickly corrected the original version that got the U.S. District
Court judge's ruling wrong. District Court Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., of the
Southern District of Mississippi dismissed the lawsuit in August 2007,
ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing and the tort claims were
non-justiciable ones to be resolved by the political system. ]




More information about the StBernard mailing list