• Here’s what happened: In a hard-hitting piece analyzing California’s climate nuisance lawsuit against five major oil and gas companies, George Mason University Law Professor Donald J. Kochan writes that courts have already ruled against a similar case… nearly 20 years ago.
• Try, try, and try again: In 2007, California sought damages from automakers for alleged contributions to climate change, based on claims of public nuisance. However, the court rejected these claims, emphasizing that it was a policy decision reserved for the appropriate legislative body.
• How we got here: Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to move a climate nuisance case to federal court, paving the way for a surge in similar lawsuits filed in state courts.
• In their own words: “The adjudication of plaintiff’s claim would require the court to balance the competing interests of reducing global warming emissions and the interests of advancing and preserving economic and industrial development…balancing of those competing interests is the type of initial policy determination to be made by the political branches, and not this Court.”–Judge Martin J. Jenkins, California v. General Motors Corp., No. 06-CV-05755 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
• TLR Thoughts: Public nuisance has evolved into a catch-all cause of action to litigate various issues and bypass the legislative process. Courts shouldn’t be engaged in developing public policy, only in applying the law to the specific facts of each case. Find out more

Read the full article here.