October Term 2010 · Docket 10-174

Can federal courts order power plants to cut emissions?

States sue power companies over climate change. The companies argue courts lack authority to set environmental policy.

Official caption
American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    General Katyal argued the case presents unprecedented numbers of perpetrators and victims. He claimed this quantitative difference eclipses past cases.

    Ms. Underwood asserted states have longstanding authority to protect land and citizens. She emphasized the right to guard against out-of-state air pollution.

    Mr. Keisler contended courts are being asked to perform legislative functions. He described the policy balancing as complex and consequential.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests whether federal courts can order private companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The dispute centers on judicial power versus legislative authority.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 19, 2011.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the Supreme Court to dismiss the case. They argue federal courts cannot manage complex environmental policy.

the opposing sides want the Supreme Court to uphold the lawsuit. They argue states have a right to protect their citizens from pollution.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue this issue requires legislative balancing of policy interests. They claim courts lack the tools to manage such complex regulatory functions.

the opposing sides argue states possess fundamental authority to protect natural resources. They claim this right extends to pollution originating in other states.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked if the argument is too generalized for the Court to address.

Justice Scalia asked what benefit the Court gains by denying Article III standing if state courts hear the suit next.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary between judicial and legislative power. It determines whether courts can directly regulate industrial emissions. The outcome shapes the role of federal courts in environmental policy.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON