Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.

In August 2010, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking an order that would, in effect, overturn the Fifth Circuit’s dismissal of the appeal.

Due to the loss of a quorum because of recusal of an additional judge, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the en banc review of a climate change tort lawsuit in which Mississippi property owners alleged that a group of energy and other companies should be held liable for some of the hurricane damage to their properties. The action means that the district court’s dismissal of the lawsuit stands. In February 2010, the Fifth Circuit granted en banc review to a 2009 decision by the Circuit that held that plaintiffs could proceed, and vacated the 2009 decision. However, in the May 2010 decision the court held that it could not give the lawsuit en banc review because it no longer had a quorum to do so, but it left standing the order vacating the panel decision. The court said the plaintiffs could seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court. Three judges vigorously dissented.

The Fifth Circuit granted petitions for rehearing en banc of its decision allowing a group of Mississippi property owners to sue a group of energy companies and the Tennessee Valley Authority in federal court for alleged climate change-related damages.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit partially reversed, holding that plaintiffs had standing to assert their public and private nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims, and that none of these claims presented non-justiciable political questions.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted by the district court.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants, including a number of companies that produced fossil fuels, caused the emission of greenhouse gases that contributed to climate change and thereby added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina, ultimately causing damages to plaintiffs’ property.