Posted: 08/12/2005
Supreme Court May Decide Standing in Warming Cases
Decision Could Limit Environmentalists’ Right to Sue
DALLAS (August 12, 2005) – Environmentalists and industry and government officials are watching three court cases that have the potential to limit plaintiffs’ ability to improperly broaden the enforcement of environmental laws, especially in global warming cases.
“It’s high time that we reigned in environmental lawsuits,” said NCPA Senior Fellow H. Sterling Burnett. “Where purported harm is speculative at best and where the plaintiff may not have suffered harm, the plea should not get through the courthouse door.”
At issue is the Supreme Court’s so-called “Laidlaw” decision in 2000 that relaxed provisions in Article III of the Constitution for plaintiffs to prove they have standing to sue. If the courts rule against plaintiffs in any of the three cases it could make it more difficult for future litigants to prove harm from any industry or government action affecting the environment.
The pending cases are varied, but similar in that plaintiffs must prove that global warming has specifically affected them:
- In one case, Friends of the Earth is suing two federal agencies claiming that the government failed to consider the environmental impact of loans and other financial guarantees for fossil fuel projects.
- Several state attorneys-general are suing five New York State utilities seeking reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
- Another case in Connecticut argues that global warming is a phenomenon and not an injury.
Plaintiffs have already lost a case in which several states sued under provisions of the Clean Air Act, demanding that the EPA regulate carbon dioxide. The court dismissed the suit, ruling that the EPA had discretion to regulate and the plaintiffs had no standing to sue. The plaintiffs can appeal to either the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Restrictions on liberty and very real economic costs should not be imposed on people or businesses in the absence of proof of harm,” Dr. Burnett added. “Environment lawsuits should at least have to meet the same standards of proof, harm and direct attribution of liability as other lawsuits.”