Abstract
The Supreme Court has historically been reluctant to involve itself in environmental matters, especially those relating to the regulation of releases or emissions of harmful substances. The court has typically been content to allow the legislative branch to fashion appropriate regulations to address environmental issues and for the executive branch to enforce those regulations. The acceptance of certiorari in the Second Circuit's Connecticut v. AEP case was a surprise because it not only involves environmental regulation, but also the common law applicable to public nuisance actions seeking redress for climate change damage allegedly caused by emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The AEP case is shaping up to be a blockbuster in the climate change debate in the United States, and the decision could have broad repercussions in not only future litigation involving climate change, but also GHG legislation and the insurance available to address damage due to weather-related events.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
