## Facts

- The Native Village of Kivalina and the City of Kivalina alleged that climate-change-driven erosion and storm impacts threatened their Alaska barrier-island community and required relocation.
- The plaintiffs sued 22 oil, energy, and utility companies, alleging the companies’ greenhouse-gas emissions contributed to global warming and resulting sea ice loss, sea level rise, and coastal erosion.
- The complaint asserted a federal common-law public nuisance theory based on a substantial and unreasonable interference with public rights and property interests.
- The plaintiffs sought monetary damages for past and ongoing harm, with relocation costs estimated at roughly $95 million to $400 million.
- The complaint also included a conspiracy theory alleging certain defendants misled the public about climate change.

## Issues

1. Whether the Clean Air Act and the EPA actions it authorizes displace a federal common-law public nuisance claim seeking damages for injuries allegedly caused by greenhouse-gas emissions.
2. Whether displacement depends on the remedy sought (damages versus abatement).
3. Whether the court must reach standing and political-question arguments when displacement resolves the case on the merits.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the federal common-law public nuisance claim on the ground that it was displaced by the Clean Air Act.
- The court held displacement applies regardless of whether the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief or monetary damages.
- Because displacement resolved the case, the court did not decide standing or the political-question doctrine.
- A concurrence would also have affirmed on Article III standing grounds, emphasizing traceability and redressability difficulties for climate-change injuries.

## Legal Principles

- Federal common law governing pollution exists only until Congress “speaks” through a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating the subject matter.
- The Clean Air Act and EPA authority over greenhouse gases displace federal common-law nuisance claims premised on greenhouse-gas emissions.
- Displacement is determined by the statutory scheme’s scope and the regulatory question addressed, not by the specific remedy requested.
- When a federal common-law cause of action is displaced, all remedies for that cause of action (including damages) are unavailable under federal common law.
- Displacement of federal common law does not, by itself, resolve the availability of state-law causes of action.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the Clean Air Act displaces federal common-law public nuisance claims based on greenhouse-gas emissions, and that displacement bars damages actions as well as claims for abatement, making it unnecessary to address standing or political-question challenges to the suit.


Native Vill. of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 696 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2012)