Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.

An Alaskan Village whose village is threatened by climate change filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of a Ninth Circuit’s decision finding that its lawsuit seeking damages under state common law was displaced by the Clean Air Act.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit by Inupiat Native Alaskans seeking to recover money damages from a number of energy companies for greenhouse gas emissions from the companies’ products that plaintiffs alleged caused eroded sea ice where the plaintiffs' village is located. The appeals court held that plaintiffs could not sue under a theory of public nuisance given that it had been displaced by the Clean Air Act.

The Ninth Circuit construed the defendant-appellees’ motion to defer calendaring of oral argument as a motion for a stay of appellate proceedings pending the Supreme Court's decision in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut and granted the motion in part by staying the case until June 15, 2011. The Ninth Circuit directed the appellees to file a status report by June 15. After the appellees filed their status report, the Ninth Circuit extended the stay until July 15, 2011.

A federal court granted a motion to dismiss in a lawsuit brought against 24 oil, energy, and utility companies by Inupiat Eskimos from Kivalina, Alaska. In dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court held that the question of how best to address climate change was a political question not appropriate for a federal trial court to decide. The court also held that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that the companies had caused them injury. The lawsuit alleged that as a result of climate change, the Arctic sea ice that protects the Kivalina coast from storms had been diminished and that resulting erosion would require relocation of the residents at a cost of between $95 and $400 million.