BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

Last updated
BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 19, 2021
Decided May 17, 2021
Full case nameBP P.L.C., et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
Docket no. 19-1189
Citations593 U.S. ___ ( more )
141 S. Ct. 1532
209 L. Ed. 2d 631
Case history
Prior
  • Motion to remand granted, Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C., 388 F. Supp. 3d 538 (D. Md. 2019)
  • Affirmed, 952 F.3d 452 (4th Cir. 2020)
  • Cert. granted, 141 S. Ct. 222 (2020)
SubsequentDistrict court order affirmed again on remand, Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C., 31 F.4th 178 (4th Cir. 2022)
Holding
The Fourth Circuit erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider all of the defendants’ grounds for removal under §1447(d).
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh  · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
MajorityGorsuch, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett
DissentSotomayor
Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Removal Clarification Act

BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a case in the United States Supreme Court dealing with matters of jurisdiction of various climate change lawsuits in the United States judicial system.

Contents

Background

Around 2017, multiple cities in the United States began filing lawsuits against oil & gas companies, asserting their worldwide activities in mining and production of petroleum products were responsible for climate change effects in their cities and states. The lawsuits broadly sought financial compensation from these companies under their individual state laws to recuperate for costs in fighting changes that arose from climate change, such as offsetting the effects of rising sea levels. Some of the early cases, such as those filed in California and New York City, were first filed in the federal court system; these cases were dismissed early as at the federal level, case law persists that federal laws like the Clear Air Act superseded state laws, and it would be up to the legislative and executive branches to take action against the oil companies under these laws, rather than state and local government. [1]

The city of Baltimore, Maryland, filed its suit against 26 oil companies in July 2018, asserting that these companies contributed to 15 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions between 1965 and 2015 that led to the world's climate change that was threatening its shorelines. Instead of in federal court, the city filed it within the Maryland state courts, which legal experts believed was a viable alternative to the federal court, and would likely be more favorable to the city. [1] This was not the only such climate change lawsuit filed at the state level against the oil companies, and as with these other suits, the defendants requested change of venue to the federal courts under the federal-officer removal statute under the Removal Clarification Act at 28 U.S.C.   § 1441, since they operated closely with the federal government. The case was moved to United States District Court for the District of Maryland. [2]

The city subsequently challenged the removal by citing the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction that the federal court had over state laws, which Judge Ellen Hollander agreed to, ordering the case back to the state court. [3] As the standard for removal puts the onus on the party seeking removal, Judge Hollander rejected the reasons given by the oil companies for keeping the case at the federal level. The defendants appealed to the Fourth Circuit on Hollander's order, but the Fourth Circuit upheld it, ruling that the federal-officer exemption did not apply to the companies despite their close-workings with the federal government. [4] [2]

Supreme Court

The Fourth Circuit's decision furthered a circuit split with how appellate courts can review challenges to the federal-officer removal statute. The Fourth Circuit's decision was shared by seven other circuits in which the appellate court can only look at the circumstances on the removal jurisdiction, while the Seventh Circuit had recently joined the opinion of the Fourth and Fifth Circuit's view in which appellate courts can review other relevant matters to the case to make their determination. The oil companies had argued that if their case was handled under the Seventh Circuit, they would have been able to maintain the federal jurisdiction based on the argument that federal laws supersede state laws. [5]

The oil companies petitioned to the Supreme Court to resolve the circuit split with regards to the federal-officer removal statute. The Court certified the petition in October 2020. [6] Justice Samuel Alito, who owns stock in several of the oil companies, had recused himself from the case. [7] Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whose father had worked for the Shell Oil Company, one of the defendants in Baltimore's case, was asked to recuse herself from the case by several amicus brief submitters, as she had previously recused herself from similar cases involving Shell during her tenure at the Seventh Circuit, but she did not do so for this case. [8]

Oral arguments were heard on January 19, 2021. [9] [8]

The Court issued its decision on May 17, 2021. In a 7–1 ruling, the Court vacated the Fourth Circuit's decision and remanded the case for further review. The majority opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by all but Justice Sonia Sotomayor (and the aforementioned recused Justice Alito). The majority agreed with BP and other petitioning companied that the Fourth Circuit erred in considering all factors for review to deny the change of jurisdiction requested by the city, thus vacating their decision but otherwise not ruling on the merits of Baltimore's complaints related to the petitioners. Gorsuch in his option stated that the law in question "provides that ‘[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, except that an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443 of this title shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.'" [10] As the law itself was vague, Gorsuch continued that "In the end, all of the parties’ fencing about language Congress didn’t use persuades us of only one thing — that we are best served by focusing on the language it did employ." [10]

Sotomayor wrote the dissent, stating her concern that the decision "will reward defendants for raising strained theories of removal". [10]

By May 24, 2021, the Court subsequently granted review of three other similar cases in which a city or state had successfully changed jurisdiction in an environmental lawsuit, vacating the Circuit court rulings that allowed these changes to proceed on the basis of the BP opinion, and remanding these cases for further review. [11]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alien Tort Statute</span> US legislation

The Alien Tort Statute, also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is a section in the United States Code that gives federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by foreign nationals for torts committed in violation of international law. It was first introduced by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and is one of the oldest federal laws still in effect in the U.S.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diversity jurisdiction</span> U.S. court jurisdiction over persons of different states or nationalities

In the law of the United States, diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives U.S. federal courts the power to hear lawsuits that do not involve a federal question. For a U.S. federal court to have diversity jurisdiction over a lawsuit, two conditions must be met. First, there must be "diversity of citizenship" between the parties, meaning the plaintiffs must be citizens of different U.S. states than the defendants. Second, the lawsuit's "amount in controversy" must be more than $75,000. If a lawsuit does not meet these two conditions, U.S. federal courts will normally lack the power to hear it unless it involves a federal question, and the lawsuit would need to be heard in state court instead.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Removal jurisdiction</span>

In the United States, removal jurisdiction allows a defendant to move a civil action filed in a state court to the United States district court in the federal judicial district in which the state court is located. A federal statute governs removal.

Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996), held that federal jurisdiction predicated on diversity of citizenship can be sustained even if there did not exist complete diversity at the time of removal to federal court, so long as complete diversity exists at the time the district court enters judgment.

<i>Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.</i>

Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., No. 4:08-cv-01138, is a lawsuit filed on February 26, 2008, in a United States district court. The suit, based on the common law theory of nuisance, claims monetary damages from the energy industry for the destruction of Kivalina, Alaska by flooding caused by climate change. The damage estimates made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Government Accountability Office are placed between $95 million and $400 million. This lawsuit is an example of greenhouse gas emission liability.

Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court determined, by a vote of 4–2, that non-U.S. citizens detained in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks cannot recover monetary damages from high level federal officials for the conditions of their confinement. The case was consolidated with Hastey v. Abbasi, and Ashcroft v. Abbasi. It was argued on January 18, 2017.

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–0 decision, held that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) under federal common law, primarily because the Clean Air Act (CAA) delegates the management of carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Brought to court in July 2004 in the Southern District of New York, this was the first global warming case based on a public nuisance claim.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2011 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down fourteen per curiam opinions during its 2011 term, which began October 3, 2011 and concluded September 30, 2012.

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified procedures for removing a class action lawsuit from state court to federal court. The case involved a dispute about revenue from oil and gas leases in which the defendant filed a motion to remove the case from a state court in Kansas to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. However, the plaintiff argued that the defendant's motion was defective because the defendant's notice of removal did not include evidence demonstrating that the amount in controversy satisfied the jurisdictional threshold. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas ultimately ruled the case should be returned to the state court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit declined to review the district court's decision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2016 term, which began October 3, 2016 and concluded October 1, 2017.

BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, 581 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Montana courts lacked personal jurisdiction over a railroad that was not incorporated in Montana and did not have its principal place of business in Montana, even though the railroad had more than 2,000 miles of track and 2,000 employees within Montana. It was the first Supreme Court case argued before a Court that included newly appointed Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the venue in patent infringement lawsuits.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2019 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down ten per curiam opinions during its 2019 term, which began October 7, 2019 and concluded October 4, 2020.

McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which ruled that, as pertaining to the Major Crimes Act, much of the eastern portion of the state of Oklahoma remains as Native American lands of the prior Indian reservations of the Five Civilized Tribes, never disestablished by Congress as part of the Oklahoma Enabling Act of 1906. As such, prosecution of crimes by Native Americans on these lands falls into the jurisdiction of the tribal courts and federal judiciary under the Major Crimes Act, rather than Oklahoma's courts.

Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case related to trademark law under the Lanham Act. In the 9–0 decision on judgement, the Court ruled that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement lawsuit is not required to demonstrate that the defendant willfully infringed on their trademark to claim lost profit damages.

Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case which determined that a third-party defendant to a counterclaim submitted in a state-court civil action cannot remove their case to federal court. The Court explained, in a 5–4 decision, that although a third-party counterclaim defendant is a "defendant to a claim," removal can only be performed by the defendant to a "civil action." And this holds true even when the counterclaim is in the form of a class action. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 permits removal by "any defendant to a class action" but this does not extend removal rights to a third-party counterclaim defendant because they are not a defendant to the original case.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down fourteen per curiam opinions during its 2020 term, which began October 5, 2020 and concluded October 3, 2021.

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 141 S.Ct. 2373 (2021), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the disclosure of donors to non-profit organizations. The case challenged California's requirement that requires non-profit organizations to disclose the identity of their donors to the state's Attorney General as a precondition of soliciting donations in the state. The case was consolidated with Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta. In July 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that California's requirement burdened the donors' First Amendment rights, was not narrowly tailored, and was constitutionally invalid.

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with standing under Article III of the Constitution related to class-action suits against private defendants. In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that only those that can show concrete harm have standing to seek damages against private defendants.

Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case brought by Texas abortion providers and abortion rights advocates that challenged the constitutionality of the Texas Heartbeat Act, a law that outlaws abortions after six weeks. The Texas Heartbeat Act prohibits state officials from enforcing the ban but authorizes private individuals to enforce the law by suing anyone who performs, aids, or abets an abortion after six weeks. The law was structured this way to evade pre-enforcement judicial review because lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of state statutes are typically brought against state officials who are charged with enforcing the law, as the state itself cannot be sued under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

References

  1. 1 2 Hasemyer, David; Kusnetz, Nicholas (July 20, 2018). "Baltimore Sues 26 Fossil Fuels Companies Over Climate Change". Inside Climate News . Retrieved January 15, 2021.
  2. 1 2 Liptak, Adam (October 2, 2020). "Supreme Court to Hear Cases on Voting Rights and Climate Change". The New York Times . Retrieved January 15, 2021.
  3. ↑ Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C., 388F. Supp. 3d538 ( D. Md. 2019).
  4. ↑ Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C., 952F.3d452 ( 4th Cir. 2020).
  5. ↑ Bruce, Dylan (November 16, 2020). "ANALYSIS: Climate Change Litigation Plaintiffs Have Struck Oil". Bloomberg News . Retrieved January 15, 2021.
  6. ↑ BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore,141S. Ct.222(2020).
  7. ↑ Kaufman, Alexander (January 15, 2021). "Amy Coney Barrett Set To Hear Case Against Shell, Her Dad's Employer For 29 Years". Huffington Post . Retrieved January 15, 2021.
  8. 1 2 Schwartz, John (January 19, 2021). "Supreme Court Case Could Limit Future Lawsuits Against Fossil Fuel Industry". The New York Times . Retrieved January 19, 2021.
  9. ↑ Hurley, Lawrence (October 3, 2020). "Supreme Court takes up energy companies' appeal over Baltimore climate suit". Reuters . Retrieved January 15, 2021.
  10. 1 2 3 Klasfeld, Adam (May 17, 2021). "Supreme Court Gives Big Oil Another Shot to Move Baltimore Climate Change Suit to Different Court; Sotomayor Pens Lonely Dissent". Law and Crime . Retrieved May 17, 2021.
  11. ↑ "(ORDER LIST: 593 U.S.). MONDAY, MAY 24, 2021. CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States . 2021-05-24. Retrieved 2022-03-12.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.