Mississippi homeowners sued 34 energy companies and utilities
operating in the Gulf Coast for damage sustained to their property
during Hurricane Katrina. The homeowners alleged that the
defendants had emitted greenhouse gases, which increased the
concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which
contributed to global warming, which accelerated the melting of
glaciers, which raised the global sea level, which increased the
frequency and severity of hurricanes, which caused the destructive
force of Hurricane Katrina. The district court concluded that it
lacked the authority to resolve the public debate over global
warming and dismissed the case. A Fifth Circuit panel reversed this
dismissal, however, holding that the homeowners have standing to
raise some of their claims and that those claims are appropriate
for resolution by the federal courts. The Fifth Circuit granted the
defendants’ petition for rehearing en banc. Cato filed an
amicus brief on the energy companies’ behalf, arguing that
homeowners lack standing to bring their suit and that the case
raises a nonjusticiable political question. Our brief asserts that
the homeowners’ claim does not provide a clear causal connection
between the harm suffered and any particular conduct by the energy
companies, and that the money damages the homeowners requested
would not remedy the environmental harm alleged. More importantly,
we maintain that political questions such as those surrounding
climate change must be resolved by Congress, not the federal
courts. Put simply, the Constitution prohibits federal courts from
resolving highly technical social and economic policy debates.
Permitting plaintiffs to achieve “regulation by litigation” would
not only contradict settled Supreme Court precedent, but would
betray the separation of powers principles embodied in the
Constitution.
