Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/51508095/Petition-for-Cert-2-2-11
Timestamp: 2017-07-24 08:06:27
Document Index: 494702877

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7401', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 68', '§ 7401', '§ 7604', '§ 7418', '§ 7416', '§ 68', '§ 7401', '§ 1370', '§831', '§ 1251', '§ 7401', '§ 1342', '§ 1337', '§ 1331', '§ 1254', '§ 7408', '§ 1365', '§ 7604', '§ 691', '§ 7410', '§ 7661', '§ 68', '§ 7416', '§ 7418', '§ 22', '§ 3', '§ 1254', '§ 7401', '§ 7401', '§ 7416', '§ 7604', '§ 7661', '§ 68', '§ 7410', '§ 7408', '§ 831', '§ 22', '§ 7418', '§ 7418', '§ 1331', '§ 1342', '§ 1251', '§ 7416', '§ 7604', '§ 1365', '§ 7416', '§ 7416', '§ 7416', '§ 691', '§ 3', '§ 7401', '§ 22', '§ 68', '§ 68', 'ART 25', 'ART 21']

Petition for Cert (2.2.11) | Clean Air Act (United States) | Air Pollution
Petition for Cert (2.2.11)Uploaded by Emily SangiRelated InterestsClean Air Act (United States)Air PollutionNuisanceCommon LawGovernment InformationRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedView MoreCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)List price: $0.00Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentNo._~_~. ~: C)g T~F: CJ ERK
STATE OF NowrH CAROLINA EX REI,. ROY C()()])EI~,
ATTO FIN EY GENERAI,,
V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY AND STATE OF ALABAMA,
Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
ROY COOPER Attorney General of North Carolina Christopher G. Browning, ,Jr.* Solicitor General James C. Gulick Senior Deputy Attorney General Marc D. Bernstein Special Deputy Attorney General
N.C. Dep’t of Justice Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 (919) 716-6900 cbrowning@ncdoj.gov February 2011 * Counsel of Record
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq., preempts a public nuisance action against a stationary source when that action is based on the common law of the State where the source is located. 2. Whether the Fourth Circuit’s conclusion that the issuance of an air quality permit bars a public nuisance action under Alabama and Tennessee law is contrary to this Court’s directive that a federal court is bound to accept interpretations of state law by the State’s highest court.
ii LIST OF PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW The petitioner is the State of North Carolina ex rel. Attorney General Roy Cooper. The respondents are Tennessee Valley Authority, defendant in this action, and the State of Alabama, who intervened on appeal over the objection of North Carolina.
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................... i LIST OF PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW ................. ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................. i v OPINIONS BELOW ........................ JURISDICTION ........................... 1 1
STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ....... 2 STATEMENT ............................. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION . . I. 2 12
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION CONFLICTS WITH THIS COURT’S D ECISION IN INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. v. OUELLETTE ....................... 13
II. THE DECISION OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT CREATES A CONFLICT AMONG THE CIRCUIT COURTS ..................... 20 III. THE ISSUES PRESENTED ARE EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT AND SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THE COURT . . 26
..... 31. 13... 13........ THE FOURTH CIRCUIT’S DISREGARD OF CONTROLLING DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURTS OF ALABAMA AND TENNESSEE MERITS SUPERVISORY REVIEW BY THIS COURT .. 2006) .... 2009) .. Appendix B District Court Judgment (Jan................iv
IV.... Appendix C District Court Memorandum of Opinion (Jan.. 37
Appendix D District Court Memorandum and Order on Summary Judgment 93a (Feb....... 30 CONCLUSION ... 2009) ....... APPENDIX Appendix A Court of Appeals Opinion (July 26..... Appendix E District Court Memorandum and Order on Motion to Dismiss 119a (July 21.... Appendix F Court of Appeals Opinion on Summary Judgment (Jan..... 2008) ...................... 27.............. 2010) ....... 2008) ..............
171a Appendix I 42 U......C..S.S.. 186a Appendix N Ala. Code § 22-28-23 (2006) . 2010) ......... Code § 22-28-3 (2006) ....S...... Code § 22-28-16 (2006) .. § 68-201 -114 (2006) .....S...... § 7401 (2006) .V
Appendix G Court of Appeals Order denying rehearing (Sept..... Appendix O Tenn..C. § 7604 (2006) ..C.. 185a Appendix M Ala.. 168a Appendix H 42 U.. Code Ann.. § 7418 (2006) ...... 174a Appendix K 42 U. § 7416 (2006) . 173a
Appendix J 42 U......... § 68-201 -103 (2006) ... Code Ann.... Appendix P Tenn..... 187a
.. 178a Appendix L Ala..C. 21...
Automated Med...S... Sanders Lead Co.. 1979) . 20. 230 (1907) .. 798 F. Liggett Group........ 2009)..S. City of Detroit. 26 Her Majesty the Queen v. Ed. Labs. 12...... 206 U. 28 Gutierrez v... 25 Hillsborough County v. Tex..... 505 U... 25...3d 309 (2d Cir... 1992) .. Elec. 1933) ..... cert...W.... 64 S.2d 61 (Tenn..... 23. 535 U. Inc.2d 332 (6th Cir. 17
.. Supp....vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Alabama v. 27.. 35 Georgia v... 178 L.... 10-174) . 30 Borland v... 14.... 874 F.. 707 (1985) . App... 504 (1992) .. Tennessee Copper Co. 1989) .... 20.. Ct.. 2d 530 (2010) (No..D... 25
Fey v...... Shelton.. Mobil Oil Corp...S...
12. 471 U. 2d 523 (Ala.S.. Nashville Gas & Heating Co. 33 Cipollone v.. 654 (2002) ........ Inc. 582 F... 369 So. granted...... 1280 (W.. 24......... Connecticut vo Am... Power Co....
.. 206 S.. 518 U. 58 (D. 1915) .S. Co. 26 Riegel v.. 124 So. International Paper Co.... Inc..... 30 International Paper Co..W... 1987) .. 470 (1996) .S... 1947) . 85 S..... Medtronic.. 179 S.. v.W. 15
... Lohr.. Assoc...... Baker... v....S...... passim Louisville & Nashville Terminal Co. 35 Ouellette v.. v..S. 1902) ... 552 U... Illinois. Rapid Transit Co. 304 (1981) ...... 481 (1987) ....... 666 F... Hortonville Educ.. 25. Ouellette. v....... 17 O’Neil v.. EPA.. v......... v....... 35. 35 Milwaukee v.......W... 954 (Tenn...S.2d 780 (Tenn.........vii Hortonville Joint School Dist. 82 (Ala. 72 S.... 635 (Tenn.. 312 (2008) .. 36 Louisville & Nashville Terminal Co..W. 451 U. Lellyett... 479 U.. State ex rel. 549 U.... 497 (2007) . Jacobs.... 881 (Tenn.... 1929) .. 36 Martin Bldg...... 426 U....... Vt..... 482 (1976) .. Imperial Laundry Co. v.. 7 Memphis Street Ry. Supp...S. 28 Medtronic....... 1904) .
14... 32 Massachusetts v... Inc..
............ 1 28 U......C.... 60 (1975) ..S.... 33
Union Electric Co.........C...S.S... § 7401 et seq. 2001) ...C.. § 1370 (2006) ......Vlll
Russell Corp.S...S...... Train v.. 13
33 U......... §831-831ee (2006) (Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933) . 14 33 U..S.....S... 427 U.....S.... (2006) ....... (2006) ..........C..C... 28 42 U.S..... § 1251 et seq..........
32....S... 246 (1976).... 6 28 U. § 7401(a)(3) (2006) .... 3 STATUTES 16 U........ § 1342 (2006) ........ § 1337 (2006) ....... 6 33 U.. Natural Res.. Def.. v............C.. 2... . 4 ..S.. 2d 940 (Ala..... Sullivan..... § 1331 (2006) . v..... 14 42 U..... § 1254(1) (2006) . § 7408 (2006) ..S....... Council......C...........C. 2
42 U. 13 33 U..... Inc. 28 U.C..C.... 421 U.... 790 So..C. EPA........S. § 1365(e) (2006) ............ 3
. § 7604(e) (2006) .. v... Am. 28 42 U.. 1146.. Mich. 3 Ala. 3. Connecticut.. §§ 691.. v..... 28 42 U.... 36 $. 2. 23.. 2010) .. 33 Michigan Environmental Protection Act......C.. Rep.... for Petitioners.R... 4.... 32
H..... 17...... § 7410 (2006) . No.. § 7661a (2006) ....... Am.....S.... 2.. 10-174 (filed Aug. 28
.... SECONDARY SOURCES Petition for Writ of Certiorari.. 34... 10-174 (filed Jan. § 68-201-114 (2006) ........ 56 (1970)..... Laws Ann..........S....ix
42 U......... Elec. 3 42 U..C.. 3.... Connecticut....... Elec........C.... 14.C. § 7416 (2006) .1201 -... No. Power Co. 31.... 91st Cong.
Tenn.... reprinted in 1970 U..S...S... § 7418(a) (2006) .. Code § 22-28-23(a) (2006) .... 6 42 U.. 19. 2d Sess...........1207 (West 1987) .. 2011) . 26. 37 Br. 14..S.. 2... 5356 ...N. R...A... Comp..C... No.C..S. 10(a) .......... Ct.... Power Co.... 22....C... Code Ann..
..... Thomsen. Envtl. 50 Ariz.... 19 Duke Envtl.... Rodgers... Philip Weinberg.C. Rev. Advancing the Rebirth of Environmental Common Law.. Environmental Law § 3:1 (2d ed. Aff............. L.........X
Holly Doremus & W...... 2 Jason J.. 1 (2007) .. Czarnezki & Mark L............. L............... Rev. & Policy Forum 155 (200S) ..... 28
.... Jr....
William H...... 34 B... Michael Hanemann. 799 (2008) .... L.. 1994) .. Of Babies and Bathwater: Why the Clean Air Act’s Cooperative Federalism Framework Is Useful for Addressing Global Warming.. "Political Questions": An Invasive Species Infecting the Courts..
The Fourth Circuit’s opinion. App. 168a) On November 23. on an interlocutory appeal. 2010. affirming the denial of Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Pet. 615 F. 2011. Tennessee Valley Authority. 168a-170a) is unreported. 2010 and denied on September 21. 43a-50a) and opinion (Pet. (Pet. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U. The final judgment (Pet. 143a-167a) is reported at 515 F. 2d 812. App.OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Pet. 93a-liSa) is reported at 549 F.S. App. 2010). App. 2d 486. (Pet.
. App. App. 2010. Supp. App. la-42a) is reported at North Carolina ex rel. App.3d 344. 119a-142a) is reported at 439 F. § 1254(1). The district court’s decision with respect to the parties’ motions for summary judgment (Pet. The opinion of the Fourth Circuit denying rehearing and rehearing en banc (Pet. Cooper v. Supp. Supp. 2010.C. JURISDICTION The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was entered on July 26. App. the Chief Justice extended the time within which to file a petition for writ of certiorari to and including February 3. 2a) A timely petition for rehearing was filed on September 8. 51a-92a) of the district court are reported at 593 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. The district court’s order denying Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Pet. 2d 725.
2 STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED The relevant statutory provisions are reprinted in an appendix to this petition. States are charged with implementing air quality programs to achieve these minimum standards. App. 42 U. 799. States. "was the first modern federal environmental statute to employ a ’cooperative federalism framework..C. Id. see 42 U. App. § 7401 et seq. § 7401(a)(3) (2006) (Pet.C. Michael Hanemann. The Clean Air Act.’ assigning responsibilities for air pollution control to both federal and state authorities. App. Id. retain the authority to impose restrictions and requirements upon stationary sources within their borders that are more stringent than the federal minimum. App. (Pet. 173a) ("nothing in this chapter shall preclude or deny the right of any State or political subdivision thereof to adopt or enforce * * * any requirement respecting control or abatement of air pollution")." Holly Doremus & W.S. however. 171a-195a) STATEMENT 1. the federal government sets the minimum level of air quality throughout the country." Why the Clear~ Air Act’s Cooperative Federalism Framework Is Useful for Addressing Global Warming. Of Babies and Bathwater. 50 Ariz.S. 42 U. § 7416 (2006) (Pet. at 819. 817 (2008). 181a) ("Nothing in this
.S. 171a) ("air pollution control at its source is the primary responsibility of States and local governments").S. L.C.C. 42 U. Rev. Under that framework. § 7604(e) (2006) (Pet.
Train v.C. Consequently. 246. the State plays the primary role in the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS while the role of EPA becomes secondary.S. 421 U." Tenn.S. States are then required to draft State Implementation Plans ("SIPs") to achieve the federal minimum standards. 250 (1976). arising from statute. Council. (Pet. § 7661a (2006).C.S. App. 427 U. see 42 U. Union Electric Co. 60. Each State is given "wide discretion" in formulating its SIP. Code Ann. the Environmental Protection Agency is required to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS") for certain criteria pollutants. 42 U. v. Natural Res.S.C. § 68-201-114 (2006).
79 (197 ).S. See 42 U. 195a)
. The legislatures of both States have stated that the issuance of such a permit does not insulate a stationary source from state tort law. The Tennessee Air Quality Act states that it shall not "be construed to abridge or alter any rights of action. both States have the authority under the Clean Air Act to issue air quality permits.. § 7410 (2006). civil or criminal. Def. Once a SIP has been approved by EPA. Inc.section shall restrict any right which any person (or class of persons) may have under any statute or common law to seek enforcement of any emission standard or limitation or to seek any other relief
Under Section 108 of the Clean Air Act. EPA. § 7408 (2006). common law or equity.
EPA has approved the SIPs for both Tennessee and Alabama.
Defendant Tennessee ValleyAuthority ("TVA") is a corporate agency and instrumentality of the United States.com/environment/air/index. These four plants emit an average of 260. TVA operates numerous electricitygenerating facilities in the southern United States. (Pet." Ala. the Alabama Air Pollution Control Act provides that the Act shall not be construed "to limit or abrogate any private remedies now available to any person. go to "Emissions Data" and select "Bull Run. 16 U. § 831-831ee. created and existing pursuant to the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933. including four coal-fired power plants within 100 miles of the North Carolina border.tva.000 tons of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides into the air each year.420 tons.C. increased incidents of asthma attacks and increased inflammation of the lungs. 187a) 2." "John Sevier" and "Widows Creek"). particularly
1 For the five-year period prior to the filing of the complaint (2001-05). the combined annual emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides for these four plants were 263. three are located in Tennessee and one is located in Alabama.4 Similarly." "Kingston. Code § 22-28-23(a) (2006).~ These emissions form fine particulate matter that penetrates the lungs and airways of persons downwind of TVA’s plants.
. resulting in premature deaths. See TVA Air Quality Emissions Data (available at www. App.S.htm. Of these four plants.
82a) (installation of proper pollution control equipment would reduce annual sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions to 44. As a result. In addition to the substantial impact on human health. the breathtaking views that were once prevalent in the mountains of western North Carolina have been substantially diminished.000 tons per year. 2006. 2d at 827 (Pet. Such a reduction would result in an immediate decrease in the deaths and other harms occurring within North Carolina. The impact of TVA’s excessive emissions has been extremely costly to North Carolina and its citizens. The
. These pollutants have resulted in acidification of the soils in this fragile ecosystem. substantially diminishing the number and variety of plants and wildlife that this ecosystem will support. On January 30.among persons who are struggling with lung disease such as emphysema. Alabama and Kentucky.321 tons per year). 3. App. See 593 F. the Great Smoky Mountains. TVA’s emissions have scarred one of our Nation’s greatest natural treasures. the State of North Carolina brought a public nuisance action against TVA in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina to address air emissions from TVA’s coal-fired electric generating units located in Tennessee. Supp.000 tons per year to less than 45. TVA’s emissions have also greatly increased haze in the region. the emissions from these four plants could easily be reduced from 260. With the installation of readily available pollution control equipment.
expressly authorized the filing of nuisance and other common law causes of action against federal facilities such as TVA’s plants. Alabama and Kentucky. § 7418(a) (2006). § 7418(a).C. 174a) The district court concluded that "[g]iven such authorization for treating federal entities as private entities for air pollution purposes. Instead. The complaint asserts that TVA is liable for the creation of a public nuisance under the laws of the States of Tennessee. The district court denied TVA’s motion to dismiss. North Carolina sought no monetary damages from TVA." 42 U. North Carolina requested only that TVA be required to install and operate readily available pollution control equipment to abate the ongoing nuisance.S. (Pet. This provision of the Clean Air Act states that federal facilities must comply with all state and local "requirements * * * respecting the control and abatement of air pollution.C.S. §§ 1331 and 1337. and the fact that state law nuisance claims
.C.S. 42 U.6 jurisdiction of the district court was based on 28 U. TVA moved to dismiss the complaint. App. Despite the enormous costs that TVA’s excess emissions have imposed upon North Carolina. concluding that Section 118 of the Clean Air Act. asserting that such an action was not appropriate against an instrumentality of the United States. thereby resulting in substantial harm to North Carolina and its citizens. The complaint alleges that TVA has failed to undertake reasonable measures to abate its emissions.
156a-160a) The Fourth Circuit rejected "TVA’s argument that the CAA does not mandate compliance with state ’requirements’ enforced through a common-law tort suit.7 against private entities for the abating of air pollution survived passage of the Clean Air Act. Inc.3d at 352-53. both North Carolina and TVA moved for summary judgment. App." 439 F. the Fourth Circuit concluded that Congress intended the word "requirements" to sweep broadly and to include common law requirements such as those imposed by a State’s nuisance laws. it follows that TVA is likewise subject to suit. On interlocutory appeal. 470 (1996)). 161a) Based on its reading of Section 118. including a defense that the issuance of air quality permits to TVA’s plants rendered it immune from a public nuisance action. App. (Pet. 515 F. (Pet. 2d at 497. in nuisance.. the district court rejected various affirmative defenses asserted by TVA. Supp. 161a) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of TVA’s motion to dismiss and remanded the action for further proceedings. for abatement of its emission of air pollutants. Following remand. 505 U.S. 518 U. Lohr.S.
. App. App. 504 (1992) andMedtronic.3d at 351-53 (citing Cipollone v. 515 F. 141a) The district court certified its order for an interlocutory appeal. In its ruling on those motions. (Pet. the Fourth Circuit agreed with the district court’s conclusion that a public nuisance action may properly be brought against TVA under the Clean Air Act. (Pet. Inc. v." 515 F. Liggett Group.3d at 352-53.
it cannot be liable in nuisance. 106a) The district court noted that this Court. in Ouellette. 106a. Supp. 732. 479 U. Supp. Supp. The district court further held that TVA’s Widows Creek plant (which is also within 100 miles of the North Carolina border) constituted a nuisance under the law of the State of Alabama. it was required to apply the nuisance law of the source States. App. App. "conclusively" refutes TVA’s assertion that because it is in compliance with its permits under the Clean Air Act." Id. 107a) Throughout its order. 481 (1987). 2d at 732. App. (Pet. 113a115a) Following a twelve-day bench trial. 2d at 731. at 732. 735.S. v. Ouellette. App. (Pet.8 The district court concluded that this Court’s decision in International Paper Co. 106a) Citing various appellate decisions in Tennessee and Alabama. 549 F. the district court pointed out that these States are "unanimous in concluding that otherwise lawful actions may be the subject of nuisance lawsuits. 549 F. rather than the law of North Carolina. 549 F. 2d at 729. (Pet. 99a. the district court recognized that under this Court’s decision in Ouellette. "discussed the potential tension between state nuisance law and federal permitting systems" and rejected an argument that the issuance of a federal permit would bar a claim under state nuisance law. (Pet. The
. Kingston and John Sevier) located within 100 miles of North Carolina constituted a nuisance under the law of the State of Tennessee. the district court held that North Carolina had established that TVA’s three Tennessee plants (Bull Run.
however.~ See. North Carolina presented evidence that TVA had in the past used its construction plan in an effort to forestall litigation and then altered that plan after the impending litigation was averted. The district court proceeded to issue an injunction requiring TVA to install readily available pollution control equipment at the four plants at issue. App. a newly constituted panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court and remanded with instructions that
2 TVA tendered its construction plan to the district court with the apparent hope of convincing the court that it was not necessary to issue an injunction. The district court required TVA to install scrubbers and selective catalytic reduction ("SCR") technology at these plants . 45a) ("As to John Sevier. Retreating from the Fourth Circuit’s interlocutory opinion that allowed this nuisance action to proceed. concluded that this equipment could be installed on a shorter time schedule than that set out in TVA’s construction plan and required TVA to comply with this shorter construction schedule.equipment that TVA had stated it planned to install even in the absence of an injunction. Supp.. 2d at 832 (Pet. The district court. 593 F.9 district court rejected North Carolina’s assertion that TVA’s plants that were further away were also a nuisance to North Carolina.g.").
. e. At trial. TVA indicated at trial that it plans to build scrubbers and SCRs sufficient to cover all four [electric generating units].
. Although this Court in Ouellette allowed a nuisance action to proceed against a facility permitted under the Clean Water Act. In doing so. that role does not include bringing a nuisance action under the law of the source State if doing so would upset the reliance interests of permit holders. the Fourth Circuit recognized that this Court’s holding in Ouellette was "equally applicable" to the Clean Air Act. rather than the law of Alabama and Tennessee.3d at 306. (Pet. the Fourth Circuit read the Ouellette decision as narrowly defining the role of an affected State. and (3) the issuance of air quality permits immunized TVA’s plants from a nuisance claim under the laws of Alabama and Tennessee. such as North Carolina. 30a) The Fourth Circuit concluded that Congress did not intend for the Clean Air Act’s savings clause to apply to actions brought by a downwind State.10 the district court dismiss the action. 30a) Nevertheless.’~ The Fourth Circuit concluded that: (1) the Clean Air Act preempts a public nuisance action in which the harm arises from air emissions. App. (Pet. The Fourth Circuit granted Alabama’s motion over North Carolina’s objection. 615 F. According to the Fourth Circuit. Ido at 304. Id. (Pet. (2) the district court improperly relied on the law of the State of North Carolina. 24a-25a)
:5 The State of Alabama moved to intervene in the appeal. App. App. the Fourth Circuit held that a nuisance action could not be brought against a facility permitted under the Clean Air Act. in analyzing the claim.
App. the district court repeatedly stated that it was obligated to apply and was applying the nuisance laws of the source States rather than North Carolina law. the issuance of a permit does not immunize a facility from a nuisance action. Supp. 2d at 729. 113a115a. See 549F. Supp. 735. (Pet. App. Finally. 106a. Id. rather than the law of Alabama and Tennessee." 615 F. 593 F. The Fourth Circuit’s decision fails to cite to the applicable provisions of the Alabama Air Pollution Control Act and the Tennessee Air Quality Act which expressly provide that these
4 Throughout the trial of this matter. (Pet. Pet. App. 86a-92a)
. (Pet. the Fourth Circuit directed the district court to dismiss the action in light of its determination that the action was preempted by the Clean Air Act. in this action. 2d at 829-31. the Fourth Circuit concluded that "it would be difficult to uphold the injunctions because TVA’s electricity-generating operations are expressly permitted by the states in which they are located. 100a. 35a-36a) In doing so. the Fourth Circuit rejected the district court’s conclusion that under Alabama and Tennessee law. 732. 35a) The Fourth Circuit stated that "[i]t would be odd" for a State to allow its nuisance laws to restrict activity for which the State has issued a permit. App.3d at 309.11 The Fourth Circuit further concluded that the district court had applied North Carolina law.4 Rather than remanding the action and instructing the district court to apply the law of these source States.
481 (1987). 874 F. Am. Her Majesty the Queen v. in factual findings that were not challenged on appeal. The district court.2d 332 (6th Cir. granted. 479 U. 2d 530 (2010) (No. v. Additionally. 1989). The Fourth Circuit. 582 F.
. the decision below is in conflict with decisions of both the Second and Sixth Circuits.. cert.3d 309 (2d Cir. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION The Fourth Circuit’s refusal to apply this Court’s holding in International Paper Co. Failure to correct the Fourth Circuit’s erroneous decision will ensure that these deaths and other harms . Power Co.12 statutes do not limit or abrogate common law causes of action. this Court expressly recognized that a nuisance action may be brought to address interstate pollution. however. 10-174). Ed. has held to the contrary. Ouellette. 2009). provided the action is based on the law of the source State. Elec. Connecticut v. The present appeal is of exceptional importance. 178 L. City of Detroit. merits review by this Court.which could be avoided by the installation of readily available pollution control technology .S. In Ouellette.will continue. concluded that TVA’s excess air emissions result in premature deaths (as well as numerous other adverse health effects and environmental harms) within the State of North Carolina.
§ 1342 (2006). Under
. Ouellette.S. In Ouellette. id. In International Paper Co. 33 U.unanimously . at 497. see 33 U. v. 479 U. J. The Court rejected the defendant’s claim that the CWA preempted all common law actions. at 490 n.13 THE FOURTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION CONFLICTS WITH THIS COURT’S DECISION IN INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO.. 481 (1987). OUELLETTE. 479 U. "nothing in the Act bars aggrieved individuals from bringing a nuisance claim pursuant to the law of the source State.10.C.S. Id. see also id. J.. and was administered by the State of New York.S. at 497. Id.. residents of Vermont brought a public nuisance action seeking injunctive and other relief in connection with International Paper’s discharge of pollutants into an interstate body of water. § 1251 et seq. provided it was based on the law of the State in which the pollution source was located (New York) rather than the law of the affected State (Vermont).C. at 484. concurring in part and dissenting in part). To the contrary.that although claims based on the nuisance law of the downstream State were preempted. at 497-99.S." Id. at 508-09 (Stevens. 479 U. the Court held . The discharge originated in New York. this Court considered and rejected the very arguments on which the Fourth Circuit now relies.S. at 500 (Brennan. This Court expressly held that the plaintiffs’ public nuisance action could proceed. The discharge was authorized by a permit that was issued under the federal Clean Water Act ("CWA"). concurring in part and dissenting in part). v.
the State of North Carolina may proceed with its public nuisance action provided the action is based on the law of the source States -Alabama and Tennessee. respectively. In Ouellette. 42 U.S. Section 116 of the Clean Air Act explicitly saves from pre-emption "any requirement respecting control or abatement of air pollution." 42 U. City of Detroit.S.S.. The Clean Air Act analogs of these sections are Sections 304(e) and 116. Medtronic.S. App. a plain "reference to a State’s ’requirements’ includes its common-law duties.14 Ouellette. Compare 33 U. 173a) As this Court has concluded.C. 1370 (2006). §§ 7416. § 7604(e). That "saving clause" is found in Sections 505(e) and 510 of the CWA. whereas the Ouellette facts involved water pollution and the CWA. 552
. §§ 1365(e). 1365(e) with 42 U. The only arguable distinction between the facts of the present case and those in Ouellette is that the present case involves air pollution crossing state lines and thus involves the Clean Air Act.C.C.343 (6th Cir. 173a. see also Her Majesty the Queen v. 181a) Section 304(e) is identical to Section 505(e) of the CWA. The Court’s analysis in Ouellette clearly demonstrates that this is a distinction without a difference. 7604(e) (2006). 874 F. 1989). at 497. this Court concluded that the CWA’s "saving clause specifically preserves" common law actions under source state law. (Pet.S. (Pet.2d 332. App. § 7416.C. 33 U." Riegel v.S.C. 479 U. Inc.
which is the heart of this matter. the Fourth Circuit concluded that North Carolina . App.497-98. at 494 (emphasis added). the Clean Air Act specifically saves the enforcement of state common law. 479 U.S. The Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit attempted to distinguish Ouellette based on this Court’s admonition that ’"affected States"’ should not be ’"allowed to impose separate * * * standards"’ on sources. at 492.
. 312.S.15 U." Ouellette. fails to even discuss Section 116 in its analysis of this issue. the district court acted at the behest of an affected State.3d at 304 (Pet. at 493-94). Throughout its opinion. App. Indeed.S. but it applied the law of the source States. (Pet. In this case. 615 F. which is the precise course charted by Ouellette. in the very next sentence this Court "conclude[d] that the CWA precludes a court from applying the law of an affected State against an out-of-state source. In making its observation. Each of those justifications was rejected by this Court in Ouellette. 324 (2008). 24a-25a) (quoting Ouellette. See Ouellette.an "affected State". From this. this Court was not referring to the nature of the plaintiff but instead to whether the "affected State" could impose its own law on sources in another State. 479 U. 479 U. 25a) The Fourth Circuit clearly misconstrued this Court’s analysis. Thus. the Fourth Circuit sets out several justifications for why a public nuisance action should not be brought.S. however.should not be "allowed to impose separate * * ¯ standards" on TVA.
Applying the common law of the affected State. The Fourth Circuit also focused on the "structure of the Clean Air Act in order to emphasize the comprehensiveness of its coverage. 479 U. it left intact common law actions under the law of the source State." application of such standards "does not disrupt the regulatory partnership established by the permit system.S.S. the imposition of source-state law does not disrupt the regulatory partnership established by the permit system. the fact that the defendant had been issued a CWA permit did not bar a common law nuisance action. 479 U.16 The Fourth Circuit’s concern that state law nuisance actions would undermine the "single system of permitting" embodied in the federal Clean Air Act was likewise considered and dismissed by this Court in Ouellette. 18a) But the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning runs afoul of this Court’s conclusion that although the CWA was "the most comprehensive and far reaching provisions that Congress ever had passed" regarding water pollution control. at 499 (emphasis added). (Pet. at 494. Ouellette. at 499." Id." Ouellette. Indeed. But.3d at 301. "would allow respondents to circumvent the * * * permit system. thereby upsetting the balance of public and private interests so carefully addressed by the Act. App. App. 615 F. in Ouellette. "[b]ecause the Act specifically allows source States to impose stricter standards.
. the Court reasoned." Ouellette. (Pet.3d at 306." 615 F. 28a-29a) Although a source State’s nuisance law "may impose separate standards and thus create some tension with the permit system.
Moreover. 707. 304. 479 U.17 479 U." Id.S. Ouellette. at 500. the Clean Air Act clearly recognizes the authority of the source State to maintain common law standards that go beyond federal requirements. "merely because * * * federal provisions [a]re sufficiently comprehensive to meet the need identified by Congress d[oes] not mean that States * * * [a]re barred from ¯ * * imposing further requirements. 451 U. Ouellette.S. Labs. App. at 489 (internal quotations and citation omitted)." Hillsborough County v. § 7416 (Pet." 615 F. App. The Ouellette decision also foreclosed the Fourth Circuit’s conclusion that it cannot "allow multiple courts in different states to determine whether a single source constitutes a nuisance. (Pet.. As this Court has cautioned. accord Milwaukee v.S. 327-28 (1981).S. finding that nothing "prevents a court sitting in an affected State from hearing a commonlaw nuisance suit" under these circumstances. 42 U.S. Inc.. 173a). Illinois. 21a) This Court expressly rejected this argument.S. Automated Med.
. 471 U.C. at 497-98. at 499. The Court specifically concluded that limiting common law claims to those under the law of the source State cured the ill identified by the Fourth Circuit: "[T]he restriction of suits to those brought under source-state nuisance law prevents a source from being subject to an indeterminate number of potential regulations.3d at 302. 717 (1985). 479 U.
This is hardly the result counseled by Ouellette. Finally. In the twenty-plus years since Ouellette. App. 302 (Pet. In Ouellette. at 298. directly conflicts with this Court’s specific rejection of any distinction between claims for
. App." 615 F. App. this Court found no such problem with allowing such claims to proceed so long as they were based on the law of the source State. at 296 (Pet. the Court in Ouellette approved of the use of state law nuisance actions so long as they were based on the correct State’s law. 21a) Instead. 12a. 21a). 7a). App.3d at 302.3d at 296 (Pet. in its view. see also id. App. has not come to pass under the CWA. id. would work "to the detriment of industry and the environment alike. the "balkanization" and "confused patchwork of standards" that the Fourth Circuit feared. The Fourth Circuit also derided the use of "vague public nuisance standards. 615 F." which.3d at 311 (Pet. the Fourth Circuit’s assertion that "[s]eeking public nuisance injunctions against TVA * ¯ * is not an appropriate course." 615 F. 23a).18 The net effect of the Fourth Circuit’s decision is far greater than avoiding having "multiple courts in different states * * * determine whether a single source constitutes a nuisance.3d at 303 (Pet." 615 F. however. 7a). Contrary to the Fourth Circuit’s assertion that this Court "created the strongest cautionary presumption against" allowing nuisance claims to proceed. its effect is to deny injured plaintiffs even the right to pursue a remedy. 41a). App. (Pet.
(Pet. however. Congress respected that decision in the Clean Air Act. App.S. case-by-case determination makes it no less the binding policy and preserved law of a State than any numeric emissions limit that a source State may promulgate.19 damages and injunctive relief. leaving nothing of the tort in its wake.C. but the Fourth Circuit did not. The Court declined to "draw a line between the types of relief sought. App. The salient fact is that Alabama and Tennessee impose numeric emissions limits and also maintain the common law tort of public nuisance. 173a) The fact that nuisance law is a common law. 22a) To do so. 479 U.19.
. The Fourth Circuit’s logic impugns the spectrum of conceivable public nuisance actions. represents no less than a broadside attack on public nuisance law." Ouellette." 615 F.S. would be contrary to Ouellette’s very holding. This is anathema to Congress’ preservation of a State’s authority to hold sources to more stringent standards than the federal minimum. The Fourth Circuit’s reasoning. it is assumed that the full cause of action under state law is available. (Pet. of course. The Fourth Circuit indicated that it could not "state categorically that the Ouellette Court intended a flat-out preemption of each and every conceivable suit under nuisance law.3d at 303. at 498 n. § 7416. See 42 U." noting that "unless there is evidence that Congress meant to ’split’ a particular remedy for pre-emption purposes. thus allowing an unwarranted intrusion upon state authority.
The Second and Sixth Circuits have expressly recognized that the Clean Air Act does not preempt nuisance-type actions. the Fourth Circuit has now concluded that the Clean Air Act preempts North Carolina’s efforts to pursue a nuisance action to protect its citizens from emissions emanating from TVA’s power plants. II. Am. 582 F. granted. 874 F. THE DECISION OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT CREATES A CONFLICT AMONG THE CIRCUIT COURTS. The Fourth Circuit’s decision stands in conflict with decisions of the Second and Sixth Circuits. 2d 530 (2010) (No.
. Elec. Her Majesty the Queen v. Review is warranted to ensure that the Ouellette decision is followed by the Fourth Circuit. 10-174). In contrast. 2009). Connecticut v.2d 332 (6th Cir. review by this Court is necessary to resolve this conflict. In American Electric Power Co. Power Co.3d 309 (2d Cir.. 178 L. Ed. 1989).. the Second Circuit considered whether a public nuisance action based on federal common law could proceed against TVA and various other utilities that emitted greenhouse gases. As reflected by this Court’s recent grant of certiorari in the Second Circuit case. cert.20 The Fourth Circuit’s repeated departures from and outright conflicts with Ouellette suggest that the Fourth Circuit was focused more on what it believes the law ought to be rather than what this Court and Congress have already said it is. City of Detroit.
Despite the Second Circuit’s decision to allow a nuisance action to proceed against TVA and other utilities as a result of emissions of greenhouse gases. App.3d at 296. the Fourth Circuit has refused to allow a public nuisance action based on state law on the theory that such an action "would encourage courts to use vague public nuisance standards to scuttle the nation’s carefully created system for accommodating the need for energy production and the need for clean air. at 304." resulting in a "balkanization of clean air regulations and a confused patchwork of standards." Id. The Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ complaint stated a claim for relief and reversed the district court’s dismissal of the action. In fact. 25a) The Fourth Circuit therefore held that the Clean Air Act preempts a nuisance action against a facility operating pursuant to a Clean Air Act permit when the plaintiff is asserting that emissions from that facility are excessive." 615 F. (Pet. to the detriment of industry and the environment alike. "Congress in the Clean Air Act opted rather emphatically for the benefits of agency expertise in setting standards of emissions controls. especially in comparison with * * * judicially managed nuisance decrees.21 Each of the plants at issue in that action had been issued valid permits under the Clean Air Act. 7a) According to the Fourth Circuit. the complaint in that action includes the TVA plants that are the subject of the present action filed by North Carolina. (Pet. App.
Accordingly. Thus. Should this Court conclude in No.5 The considerations articulated by the Fourth Circuit (e.
. but it does specifically save state common law.22 If the Second Circuit is correct that this Court’s precedents allow Connecticut to pursue a public nuisance action against TVA in connection with TVA’s emissions of greenhouse gases. the Fourth Circuit’s conclusion that the Clean Air Act preempts state law nuisance actions cannot be squared with the Second Circuit’s decision that nuisance actions based on federal common law may go forward.. North Carolina’s nuisance action must be permitted to proceed as well. the vague and indiscriminate nature of public nuisance actions) as the basis for concluding that the Clean Air Act preempts nuisance actions applies equally to nuisance actions brought under state law and to nuisance actions brought under federal common law. the Second Circuit’s decision to allow a nuisance action to proceed under federal common law is inconsistent with the Fourth Circuit’s conclusion that a nuisance action based on state law is preempted.
~ Connecticut’s action in the Second Circuit case is based on federal common law.g. and Ouellette did not address federal common law. This is particularly true given that this Court has previously recognized that state nuisance law is not preempted under the Clean Water Act. 10-174 that the Clean Air Act displaces federal common law. The Clean Air Act does not specifically preserve federal common law. such a holding would not necessarily resolve the issue presented by this petition given Congress’ express preservation of state common law. however.
" Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Power Co. 2011) (noting conflict between the decisions of the Second and Fourth Circuits).S. 874 F. v. pp. the decisions of the Second and Fourth Circuit cannot be reconciled. in part. Power Co. Power Co. 23-24. Connecticut. 2010). Plaintiffs brought their claim under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act. City of Detroit. This statute
. §§ 691. v. on the inherent conflict between the decisions of the Second and Fourth Circuits. for Petitioners. p. 31. 27. The Fourth Circuit’s decision also conflicts with the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Her Majesty the Queen v. v. 3. p.1207.2d 332 (6th Cir. 10-174 (filed Jan. 2. 1989). Elec. 10-174. a state statute that effectively codified a nuisance-like cause of action. 479 U.23 International Paper Co. Connecticut. v. 481 (1987).1201-. They argued that the considerations on which the Fourth Circuit relied in support of preemption of state common law claims require the "displacement of the federal common law. 32 (filed Aug. 29. As these utilities recognize. Comp. Elec. In their petition for writ of certiorari to this Court. Elec. American Electric Power and other electrical utilities named as defendants in the Second Circuit case argued that certiorari should be granted based. 40. Laws Ann. Ouellette. See Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Am. Am. the plaintiffs asserted that they would be harmed by emissions from a waste incinerator that had been issued a permit under the Clean Air Act. No. Am. 24. In that case. Connecticut. see also Br. No. Mich.
3d at 306. App. The Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ claim that a Michigan plant operating under a Clean Air Act permit must meet "more stringent standards selected by the Michigan courts" is not preempted by the Clean Air Act. 28a) The Fourth Circuit reasoned that allowing a nuisance action to be brought against a facility that had been issued a permit under the Clean Air Act would "upset the reliance interests" of permit holders "in favor of the nebulous rules of public nuisance. 874 F." 874 F.2d at 342. 30a) Under the Fourth Circuit’s decision." Id.24 left to the judiciary the task of "developing a state common law of environmental quality. in the Sixth Circuit.2d at 338. In contrast to the Sixth Circuit. App. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Thus." 615 F." 874 F." Id. The district court held that the Clean Air Act preempted the plaintiffs’ state law claims. the Fourth Circuit’s decision provides that a State cannot "supplantS] operating permits" with"mandates derived from public nuisance law. (Pet. (Pet.2d at 341. concluding that the Clean Air Act "displaces state law only to the extent that state law is not as strict as emission limitations established in the federal statute. The Sixth Circuit concluded that state common law that imposes more stringent requirements than a Clean Air Act permit is "unaffected by federal law. the issuance of a valid Clean Air Act permit does not preempt a cause of action sounding in nuisance in which the plaintiff seeks to abate excess emissions. a
the Fourth Circuit’s decision is in conflict with not only this Court’s decision in Ouellette but also with the decisions of the circuit and district courts that have faithfully applied that precedent.g.. Power Co. Tex. 1992) ("This Court holds that the Clean Air Act does not preempt the plaintiffs’ various common law
. 798 F. Thus. Supp." An Invasive Species Infecting the Courts.25 State where a stationary source is located cannot. Elec. federal courts had consistently held that the issuance of a discharge permit does not preempt an action in nuisance.2d at 343 (Clean Air Act does not preempt state law causes of action that impose more stringent requirements than a federal permit given that "Congress did not wish to abolish state control").. "Political Questions".D. Prior to the Fourth Circuit’s decision. Gutierrez v. 582 F. & Policy Forum 155. Philip Weinberg."). the Fourth Circuit’s decision is in direct conflict with the holding of the Sixth Circuit. 1285 (W. Thus. Her Majesty the Queen. 874 F. Am. 1280. See. e. 163 (2008) ("The courts have long and consistently rejected assertions that the enactment of regulatory statutes like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act preempt states from public nuisance actions. Mobil Oil Corp. impose more stringent requirements on a facility than is set out in the facility’s air emission permit. through its own nuisance laws.. L. 19 Duke Envtl.3d at 326 (rejecting defendant’s argument that "vague and indeterminate nuisance concepts" should have no role in the resolution of complex disputes relating to air emissions).
it is clear that the Fourth Circuit will be unlikely to retreat from its reading of Ouellette. 1. The circuit split thus appears to be firmly entrenched."). v. Connecticut. 1987) ("plaintiffs’ state law nuisance claim is not preempted by the CAA"). The issue presented by this petition will divide the circuit courts until resolved by this Court. 34 B. 62 (D. Ouellette v. 9 (2007) ("Like the CWA. In factual findings that were uncontested by TVA on appeal. Thomsen. the present petition should be granted in order to bring uniformity among the circuit courts on this important issue."). the district court found that exposure to particulate matter and ozone formed from emissions from TVA’s four plants closest to North Carolina have resulted in significant adverse health effects in North Carolina. 58. III. the CAA does not preempt state common law nuisance claims. Aff. L. 666 F. see also Jason J.. Rev. To the extent that this split is not resolved by this Court in American Electric Power Co. Here. No.C. THE ISSUES PRESENTED ARE EXTRAORDINARILYIMPORTANTAND SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THE COURT. Envtl. Thus. Exposure to these pollutants results in an
. Supp. 10174. Vt. International Paper Co. Czarnezki & Mark L. Advancing the Rebirth of Environmental Common Law.26 claims. the Fourth Circuit declined to reconsider its decision en banc. It is difficult to overstate the importance of this case.
Accordingly. App. the decision below has profound consequences on the ability of States to protect their citizens from deadly emissions emanating from plants such as TVA’s. 69a-76a) Deposition of particulate matter also causes the release of toxins in soils and lowers the nutrient content of soils. (Pet. cardiac arrhythmia and sudden infant death syndrome. Id. the district court found that particulate matter diminishes visibility in the "cherished. 593 F. this Court has recognized that the ability of States to bring a nuisance action in order to protect their citizens from air pollution is a core aspect of state sovereignty. Supp.S. App. at 823. Tennessee Copper Co. 237 (1907). 74a) The decision below has a tremendous impact on the environment and public health.. stunting the growth of vegetation. In that case. acute respiratory pain. at 823. 230. Id. 69a-70a) These pollutants result in scarring of the lungs. 206 U. At issue is whether people in North Carolina will continue to die as a result of TVA’s excess emissions . pristine wilderness areas" of western North Carolina. (Pet. 2d at 821-22. (Pet. App.even though these deaths could be readily averted by installing and operating modern pollution control equipment. Georgia v. and increased incidence of asthma and chronic bronchitis. (Pet. 73a) Finally.27 increase of premature deaths from adverse pulmonary inflammation. at 82224. this Court emphasized that States must have "the last
. App. Id. For well over a century.
H.S. in protecting natural resources and the health of their citizens. The Clean Air Act was drafted with the intent of preserving the ability of States to use nuisance law to protect against environmental harm. 1146.1.R. and so the effects are felt fully in the downwind State.. 497.28 word as to whether * * * [their] inhabitants shall breathe pure air. recognized for over a century by this Court. The issues raised by this petition are particularly important given that this Court has previously addressed the role that nuisance actions should play in the context of interstate pollution. 5356. reprinted in 1970 U.. Rodgers. No. 91st Cong. at 125 (2d ed. 5388. Environmental Law § 3.A. it profoundly affects the interest of States. this Court has recognized that when pollution crosses state lines. see William H. 1994).S. Jr. For over two decades. 42 U. 7416. an action may be brought for common law nuisance provided it is based on the law of the State from which the harmful emissions originate . §§ 7401(a)(3). More recently.S.C. 56 (1970).C. The interest of the affected State is particularly acute where. Rep. the offending facilities are near the State line. 7604(e). See id." Id. EPA. The Fourth Circuit’s decision not only flies in the face of express congressional intent. as here.C. at 238 (facilities in question were "near the Georgia line"). 2d Sess. 519 (2007). this Court reiterated that States have a strong interest in "preserv[ing] [their] sovereign territory" from the impacts of air pollution.notwithstanding a comprehensive federal
. 549 U.N. in Massachusetts v.
a As a further example.29 permitting scheme addressing such emissions. Fifth. The significance of this split is magnified by the fact that electrical utilities are typically large. Seventh.~ Thus. Ouellette.
. International Paper Co. the Fourth Circuit effectively ignored both the holding and language of the Ouellette decision. Fifth. Eighth and Tenth Circuits. Sixth and Eleventh Circuits. 479 U. As set out above. Sixth. extends into seven different States within the Fourth. a plaintiff who brings a public nuisance action against TVA can file that action in any one of four different circuits. Review by this Court is necessary to bring the Fourth Circuit back in line with the precedents of this Court. Opinions of this Court must not be circumvented by the lower courts. (one of the utilities that petitioned for certiorari in the Second Circuit case) spans eleven States within the Fourth. Given the fact that public utilities will generally be subject to suit in multiple circuits. multi-state businesses whose service area reaches into multiple circuits.S. uniformity among the circuit courts is particularly important. v. TVA’s service area. for example. Finally. the split that the Fourth Circuit’s decision creates with the Second and Sixth Circuits further highlights the importance of the issues raised by the petition. the service area of American Electric Power Co. 481 (1987).
Ouellette." 615 F. States and the regulated community. 674 (2002). Assoc. v.
. 426 U. Apparently recognizing that its holding was a remarkable break from this Court’s decision in International Paper Co. 535 U. the Fourth Circuit’s decision runs afoul of this Court’s repeated directive that federal courts are bound to accept the interpretation of state law made by a State’s highest court. Hortonville Joint School Dist. 482. (Pet App. 38a) In doing so.S.S. Hortonville Educ. 654. Alabama v. however. this Court should grant the petition and resolve this important issue. THE FOURTH CIRCUIT’S DISREGARD OF CONTROLLING DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURTS OF ALABAMA AND TENNESSEE MERITS SUPERVISORY REVIEW BY THIS COURT." they "cannot logically be public nuisances under Alabama and Tennessee law..30 The issue of whether the Clean Air Act preempts public nuisance actions relating to emissions from a permitted facility is an important and recurring issue of federal law. Given the tremendous burdens and costs that TVA’s excessive emissions unfairly place on North Carolina and its citizens. The resolution of this issue significantly impacts our environment. the Fourth Circuit attempted to buttress its holding by asserting that because "TVA’s facilities operate under permits.3d at 310. v. Shelton.
Assuming the Fourth Circuit were correct that the district court improperly applied North Carolina law (which the record does not support). Accordingly. As set out below.31 488 (1976).would be to remand with instructions to apply Alabama and Tennessee law. As set forth below. Third. Thus. North Carolina is entitled to relief irrespective of the second basis for the Fourth Circuit’s opinion. Second. the Fourth Circuit held that North Carolina’s action is preempted by the Clean Air Act. however. the Fourth Circuit’s effort to provide an alternative basis for its holding should not insulate its decision from certiorari. rather than dismissal of the action. the issuance of a permit to TVA bars a nuisance action. the remedy . the third basis for the Fourth Circuit’s opinion should not deny this Court the opportunity to resolve an important issue of federal preemption. supervisory review by this Court is appropriate whenever a circuit court flouts binding Supreme Court precedent . the Fourth Circuit found that under Alabama and Tennessee law. Accordingly.7 Moreover.even when the
~ The Fourth Circuit purports to set out three bases for its opinion.in the absence of a determination that the action was preempted .
. First. the Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court applied North Carolina law rather than the law of the source States. both Alabama and Tennessee law clearly recognize that the issuance of an air quality permit does not insulate the permit holder from an action for nuisance. only the third basis of the opinion appears to stand as a separate and independent ground for the Fourth Circuit’s holding. if the Fourth Circuit erred in holding that the action was preempted.
Here. Co. 2d at 830. (Pet.8 constitutes a nuisance if the activity hurts. In Russell Corp. Supp. v. the Alabama Supreme Court rejected the defendants’ argument that the issuance of a valid waste water discharge permit by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management to defendants shielded them from a nuisance action: [E]ven a lawful and careful activity. Alabama law could not be clearer that the issuance of a permit authorizing the discharge of pollutants does not insulate the permit holder from a nuisance action. 593 F. Sullivan. R.32 lower court attempts to provide an alternative basis for its holding. inconveniences. 2001). 82. the district court found as a fact that TVA’s failure to install readily available pollution control equipment resulted in substantial harm to North Carolina and its citizens. 2d 940 (Ala. the plaintiffs may still maintain an action
s The Alabama Supreme Court has long recognized that the failure to install readily available pollution control equipment may constitute a culpable act under Alabama law giving rise to an action in nuisance. 85 (Ala. or damages the complaining party.. Martin Bldg. Ct. 10(a). 790 So. at 88a)
. ImperiaILaundry Co. Therefore. when combined with culpable acts. 1929). v. App. 124 So. See S. although [defendants] argue that their actions were in accordance with state and federal regulations and that they were permissible under various permits.
"). Instead of relying on Alabama law as pronounced by the Alabama Supreme Court. correction. we cannot say that the plant emissions of which North Carolina complains are a public nuisance. 1979). or prevention of air pollution * * * * Ala. Not only is Alabama law clear that an environmental permit does not shield the permit holder from a nuisance action. control. N. 593 F.. the Fourth Circuit based its opinion on what it would like Alabama law to become. 86a). pp. even though it was expressly relied on by the district court and cited in North Carolina’s brief to the Fourth Circuit. See 615 F. the Fourth Circuit’s opinion fails to cite to this controlling decision of the Alabama Supreme Court.
. The Alabama Air Pollution Control Act expressly states: [N]othing in this section shall be construed to limit or abrogate any private remedies now available to any person for the alleviation. 369 So. ld. 2d 523. App. 526 (Ala. Br. 38a) ("As TVA’s facilities operate under permits. 2d at 829 (Pet. this is particularly true with respect to air pollution. required by Congress and EPA regulations. 4th Cir.C.33 against [defendants] if they can prove the elements of nuisance. Remarkably. Supp. 50. Sanders Lead Co.3d at 310 (Pet. Code § 22-28-23(a). 20. App. 187a) In Borland v. (Pet. App. at 951 (citation omitted). abatement.
The Tennessee Air Quality Act expressly provides that the Act shall not "be construed to abridge or alter any rights of action. 1303. the very permits issued by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation provide that they do not authorize TVA to violate any state law . J." Tenn. common law or equity. 1734. (Pet.34 the Alabama Supreme Court held that in light of this statute. 4th Cir. civil or criminal. Disregarding this controlling state statute. Like Alabama. App. § 68-201114.A. 1582." 615 F. The Fourth Circuit also attempted to re-write Tennessee law in its effort to craft an alternative basis for its opinion.3d at 310. arising from statute. App. the trial court erred in concluding that a permit holder’s compliance with the Alabama Air Pollution Control Act shields the defendant from liability under common law causes of action. the Fourth Circuit asserts that "[a]n activity that is explicitly licensed and allowed by Tennessee law cannot be a public nuisance. the Tennessee legislature has expressly recognized that neither compliance with the State’s environmental statutes nor compliance with any permit issued under those statutes stands as a defense to a nuisance action. (Pet. Code Ann.whether statutory or common law. 38a) No Tennessee appellate court has ever so
. 195a) In fact.
W. (Pet. State ex rel.2d 61 (Tenn.W. that this doctrine had no applicability to the facts before it given that the defendant had been authorized to install gas pipes below the street’s surface. 881 (Tenn. 206 S. at 62. 640 (Tenn.3d at 310. in passing. 85 S. is misplaced.
. the Tennessee Court of Appeals noted. Similarly. v. The O’Neil opinion has no bearing on the issue that was before the Fourth Circuit. The Fey decision simply does not stand for the proposition that a license or permit immunizes the defendant from a nuisance action. 615 F. the Tennessee Supreme Court. the
Tennessee Supreme Court has recognized that licenses. Rapid Transit Co. 179 S. Nashville Gas & Heating Co. neither case supports the opinion below. North Carolina’s nuisance action is not based on TVA impeding traffic on a public highway. Baker.
Louisville & Nashville Terminal Co. the State of Tennessee granted the defendant a charter to construct a railroad terminal in
’ Although the Fourth Circuit cites to two Tennessee appellate court decisions in support of its view of Tennessee law.. v. considered the validity of a referendum on the sale of liquor. 1915).W. In Lellyett. 1904).W. 1933).35 held. 64 S.W.. See Memphis Street Ry.9 Moreover. Here. App. In Fey. 64 S. Ct.2d 780 (Tenn. Lellyett. App. for well over a century. in a two page opinion. 635. 38a) In O’Neil v. 1947). permits and charters issued by the State do not immunize the holder from a nuisance action. Tennessee courts have long held that any unauthorized obstruction of a public highway is a nuisance. the Fourth Circuit’s citation to Fey v.
W. 1902)).W. Id. App. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the State ’"can give no license"’ that will allow a defendant to operate ’"in disregard of the rights of others"’ and ’"with immunity for the~ invasion"’ of those rights. arising from statute. The Tennessee Supreme Court in Lellyett noted that any legislation that authorizes the holder of a license to engage in a nuisance would be "so utterly repugnant to our constitution and system of government * * * that it will never be attempted or upheld. v. 85 S.36 Nashville.W." 85 S. common law or equity. 195a)
. Code Ann. Jacobs. it is not surprising that the Tennessee Air Quality Act provides that it shall not "be construed to abridge or alter any rights of action. Accordingly. civil or criminal. (Pet. 954. at 887. at 881-82. the legislature could not grant defendant the right "to seriously impair or destroy property not so taken. The Tennessee Supreme Court reasoned that although the Tennessee legislature had granted the defendant the power to condemn property for public use." Tenn. 72 S. Id. An adjoining landowner brought a nuisance action as a result of noise and smoke emanating from the facility. The Tennessee Supreme Court concluded that the fact that the legislature had authorized the defendant to operate a railroad terminal did not prevent the facility from constituting a nuisance." 85 S. § 68-201114. at 887 (quoting Louisville & Nashville Terminal Co. at 886.W. 958 (Tenn.
and then disposed of accordingly. 10-174. the petition should be held pending this Court’s decision in American Electric Power Co. Connecticut. When. Ouellette.
. however.particularly given the fact that the Fourth Circuit clearly disregarded binding opinions of the highest courts of those two States.37 This Court should not generally concern itself with issues of state law (even if wrongly decided by a circuit court). v. In the alternative. Regardless of how much the panel below disliked this Court’s holding in International Paper Co. The lower court did not have the option of disregarding that holding. The fact that the panel did so and then tacked on to its opinion erroneous statements regarding Alabama and Tennessee law should not make this case any less worthy of certiorari . a circuit court blatantly refuses to apply this Court’s precedent and then seeks to insulate its holding from reversal by asserting an alternative basis arising from a clearly erroneous reading of state law. No. it was obligated to follow that decision unless and until it is reversed by this Court. v. this Court should exercise its supervisory powers to ensure that this Court’s prior decisions are not circumvented. CONCLUSION The petition for writ of certiorari should be granted.
38 Respectfully submitted. Bernstein Special Deputy Attorney General
. Gulick Senior Deputy Attorney General Marc D. ROY COOPER Attorney General of North Carolina Christopher G.* Solicitor General of North Carolina James C. Jr. Browning.
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Petition for Cert (2.2.11)Skip carouselALEC Resolution to Eliminate the Clean Air Acts Employee Trip Reduction ProvisionTrain v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 421 U.S. 60 (1975)CCAM v Murphy Oil USA Inc Case No 08 4986 Complaint 11-21-2008Sierra Club v. Larson, 1st Cir. (1993)Guia de Emisiones455EPA PM SuitAgriculture LawRuleRuleRuleUS Department of Justice Official Release - 01519-05 enrd 476Motion for Contempt- Irs No Regional Offices-fed Reg (3)NoticeNoticeRuleRuleCRS - 2005 Clear Skies and the Clean Air Act Whats the DifferenceRuleNitrogen Oxide Emissions and Midwest Power Plants April 2011 Environmental SynopsisBenefit n Harms - ESSAYAddressing Ambient Air Pollution in JakartaRuleA Historical Overview of the Development of Clean Air RegulationsEnvironmental Health Risks With Living Near Refineries or Harborsannotated bibliographyQuestion for MarineFair Trade on a Global ScaleAbstract Global Warming Documents About Clean Air Act (United States)Skip carouselThe Legal LimitKnowledge Management on Air QualityAtk Launch Systems, Inc. v. Usepa, 651 F.3d 1194, 10th Cir. (2011)William Yeatman - EPA's Shocking New Mexico Power GrabAlaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004)Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States, 434 U.S. 275 (1978)Myra Holladay Sims and Florida Import and Compliance Association, Plaintiffs v. State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Defendant, 832 F.2d 1558, 11th Cir. (1987)HOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - EPA'S PROPOSED OZONE RULESENATE HEARING, 107TH CONGRESS - REGULATE AIR QUALITY ON THE SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN RESERVATIONArizona Public Service Co. v. USEPA, 562 F.3d 1116, 10th Cir. (2009)SENATE HEARING, 110TH CONGRESS - REFORM OF THE MINING LAW OF 1872SENATE HEARING, 110TH CONGRESS - OVERSIGHT ON EPA'S CHILDREN'S HEALTH PROTECTION EFFORTSSENATE HEARING, 112TH CONGRESS - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET62271_1995-1999Murray Energy Corp. v. EPACitizens Against the Refinery's Effects, Inc., and Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Hampton Roads Energy Co., Intervenor, 643 F.2d 178, 4th Cir. (1981)Business Roundtable Letter to Chairman Issa - January 7, 2011HOUSE HEARING, 108TH CONGRESS - HOW TO IMPROVE REGULATORY ACCOUNTINGGarrett Vaughn - Clearing the Air2.1.16 Refineries EPA Petition for Admin ReconFixing the Foul PlayIn the Matter of Stauffer Chemical Company v. Environmental Protection Agency and United States of America, 647 F.2d 1075, 10th Cir. (1981)United States of America, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of West Virginia, and State of Ohio, Intervenor in District Court v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation, 818 F.2d 1077, 3rd Cir. (1987)HOUSE HEARING, 112TH CONGRESS - THE AMERICAN ENERGY INITIATIVE, PART 25EPA v. California Ex Rel. State Water Resources Control Bd., 426 U.S. 200 (1976)Kinney v. Blue Dot Services of Kansas, 10th Cir. (2012)SENATE HEARING, 111TH CONGRESS - HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF REGINA McCARTHY TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYSouthern Alliance for Clean Energy v. Duke Energy, 650 F.3d 401, 4th Cir. (2011)SENATE HEARING, 110TH CONGRESS - AN UPDATE ON THE SCIENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING AND ITS IMPLICATIONSCity Limits Magazine, August/September 1989 IssueDocuments About Air PollutionSkip carouselSouth Etobicoke air quality studyTimes Leader 12-11-2011King's College London report on mortality burden of NO2 and PM2.5 in LondonThe Cost of Environmental DegradationClimate Wrongs and Human RightsProposal for a revised State Implementation Plan in Collin County for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality StandardHOUSE HEARING, 110TH CONGRESS - CLIMATE CHANGE4013_1970-19748401_2000-2004SENATE HEARING, 110TH CONGRESS - EXAMINE PORT POLLUTION AND THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL CONTROLS ON LARGE SHIPSAir Pollution Variance Bd. of Colo. v. Western Alfalfa Corp., 416 U.S. 861 (1974)Exhibit f - 10-10-02 MinutesFinal Ea for Lcs East Coast_6.6.13Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States, 434 U.S. 275 (1978)2016-10-04 Update Pulaski Air QualityHOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - EPA'S PROPOSED OZONE RULECREW FOIA 2014-006851-0001305Recycling a Missed Opportunity to Make Denver More SustainableEstimating Individual-Level Exposure to Airborne Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons throughout the Gestational Period Based on Personal, Indoor, and Outdoor MonitoringZambone and Logomasini - Environmental TrendsNew York Vw Complaint 7.19Climate Wrongs and Human Rights24 Ways to Reduce Minnesota Air PollutionHOUSE HEARING, 112TH CONGRESS - THE AMERICAN ENERGY INITIATIVE, PART 21Arizona Public Service Co. v. USEPA, 562 F.3d 1116, 10th Cir. (2009)6960_1990-1994Appeal to LA City Council about Southern California International Gateway