Supreme Court

I have been irresponsible (especially since I brought the case up in my class this week) in not blogging about AEP v. Conn. (here’s an earlier post), the case considers whether common law nuisance can be used to abate greenhouse gas emissions.  The case was argued before the US Supreme Court this week.  So here are some resources, from bloggers more timely than I, to get my readers up to speed.

The oral argument transcript can be found here.

SCOTUSblog’s case page and Argument Recap.

Commentary at Legal Planet here and here and here (my students will be interested in this last link related to nuisance and remedies).

I can’t.  I couldn’t do it.  So regardless of what you think of Justice Thomas and his silence, it’s borderline amazing that he can go 5 (!) years without saying anything at oral argument.

Today, Vermont Law School’s Environmental Law Center launched its first annual Top 10 Environmental Watch List. Our environmental faculty and students from the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law researched more than 75 judicial, regulatory, and legislative actions before selecting what they consider the 10 most important environmental law and policy issues of 2010.   Read more at

With a student, I co-authored the article for No. 8 on the list, Supreme Court Reviews Genetically Modified Crops.

Here’s a list of blog posts discussing the Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari in the case of American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, a common law nuisance suit against large electric utility companies that emit greenhouse gases.

SCOTUS Grants Cert in AEP v. Connecticut; Why the Threat of Tort Liability Should Remain as Part of the Balance of Powers by Doug Kysar

Cert in Connecticut v. AEP: Eight Comments by Jonathan Zasloff


Global Warming Goes Back to Court by Jonathan Adler

See here and here.

(1) A Conn. v. AEP decision soon? Will SCOTUS take the case?

(2) An update on the climate meetings in Cancun.  But I don’t see how the U.S. can have such broad international goals given the current domestic politics of climate change.

The FDA now has the authority to regulate tobacco and has unveiled new warning labels (under a new 2009 law).  The graphics aren’t nearly as graphic as in other countries (like say Singapore), but it’s a start given the Supreme Court’s decision in FDA v. Brown & Williamson that thwarted the Clinton administration’s attempt to regulate tobacco under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Next Page »