(Source: Business Wire)

Two starkly different decisions handed down in the past few days by the
federal courts illustrate how the courts are addressing the complicated
and controversial issues regarding climate change litigation.
On Friday, October 16, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit held that the complaint of the class action plaintiffs in
the case of Ned Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, et. al., Case No.
07-60756, could proceed. Reversing the lower federal court, the court
ruled that the plaintiffs, residents and owners of land and property
along the Mississippi Gulf Coast had standing to assert their claims
that the defendants' operation of energy, fossil fuels and chemical
industries in the United States caused the emission of greenhouse gases,
which contributed to global warming, which in turn caused a rise in sea
levels and added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina, which destroyed
their property. Moreover, the court held that this complaint did not
assert a non-justiciable political question.
The plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages based on
Mississippi common law precedent and the provisions of the Mississippi
Constitution, and they argued they had standing to litigate these claims
based on the 2007 decision of the United States Supreme Court in
Massachusetts v. EPA. The Court held that the states had standing to
seek review of a decision by the EPA not to regulate carbon dioxide
emissions, and that CO2 is a pollutant as defined by the Clean Air Act,
and could be regulated as such provided that EPA makes the appropriate
finding that its emissions are an "endangerment" under the law, and
there was a plausible link between man-made emissions of greenhouse
gases and global warming. While allowing the claims based on private and
public nuisance, negligence and trespass to continue, the Appeals Court
dismissed the claims based on allegations of unjust enrichment,
fraudulent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy.
The Appeals Court not only overturned the brief dismissal order issued
by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, but
also harshly criticized the lower court decisions in California v.
General Motors Corporation and the first American Electric Power
case decided in the Southern District of New York.