Description: Action by native Alaskans seeking damages from oil and power companies for impacts of climate change on their village.
-
Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/20/2013 Order List Certiorari denied. The Supreme Court denied the Native Village of Kivalina’s petition for a writ of certiorari without comment. 04/18/2013 Brief Download Brief in opposition filed. 02/25/2013 Petition for Writ of Certiorari Download Petition for writ of certiorari filed. 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.
-
Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 11/27/2012 Order Rehearing en banc denied. The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for a rehearing en banc concerning its decision affirming dismissal of the Inupiat Native Alaskans' lawsuit. 09/21/2012 Opinion Download Opinion issued affirming dismissal. 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. -
Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 09/30/2009 Order Download Order issued granting defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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. 02/26/2008 Complaint Download Complaint filed.