Description: Action brought by Minnesota against members of the fossil fuel industry for allegedly causing climate change harms by misleading the public by downplaying the threat of climate change and the role of their products in causing climate change.
-
Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 01/24/2024 Order Download Stay lifted and case remanded to state court. On January 24, 2024 (15 days after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Eighth Circuit’s affirmance of the remand order in Minnesota’s case), the federal district court for the District of Minnesota lifted the stay on the case and remanded it to state court. 08/18/2023 Letter Download Letter filed by Minnesota in further support of lifting stay. 08/02/2023 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants opposing lifting of stay. 07/31/2023 Letter Download Letter filed by Minnesota requesting that stay be lifted. 08/20/2021 Memorandum Opinion and Order Download Defendants' motion to stay execution of remand order granted and plaintiff's motion for attorney fees denied. Federal Court Stayed Remand Order in Minnesota’s Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Industry, Denied Attorney Fees. The federal district court for the District of Minnesota stayed its order remanding Minnesota’s climate change lawsuit against the fossil fuel industry. The court found that a stay was prudent both due to uncertainty about the impacts on the Eighth Circuit’s consideration of the remand order of the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c. and the Second Circuit’s decision in City of New York v. Chevron Corp. and also because it was possible there might be a final disposition in state court prior to resolution of the Eighth Circuit’s appeal, which would be a “concrete and irreparable” injury to the defendants. The court also found that judicial economy and conservation of resources weighed in favor of a stay. Because the balance of factors was likely to shift over time, the court said it would reevaluate the stay if the Eighth Circuit appeal was not resolved in 12 months. The court also denied Minnesota’s motion for attorney fees, concluding that “removal advanced critical legal questions that have not yet been resolved by the higher courts.” 06/24/2021 Response Download Response filed by defendants to plaintiff's notice of supplemental authority (denial of certiorari in Chevron Corp. v. Oakland). 06/15/2021 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority (denial of certiorari in Chevron Corp. v. Oakland) filed by Minnesota. 06/08/2021 Response Download Response filed by Minnesota to defendants' notice of supplemental authority. 06/03/2021 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority filed by defendants in support of motion to stay remand. 05/28/2021 Response Download Response filed by defendants to plaintiff's notice of supplemental authority. 05/27/2021 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority filed by State of Minnesota. 04/29/2021 Opposition Download Opposition filed by defendants to Minnesota's motion for attorney fees. 04/15/2021 Memorandum of Law Download Memorandum of law filed in support of plaintiff State of Minnesota's motion for just costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Minnesota filed a motion for costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of defendants’ “improper removal.” 04/14/2021 Reply Download Reply filed in support of motion to stay execution of remand order pending appeal. 04/13/2021 Opposition Download Opposition filed by Minnesota to motion to stay. 04/07/2021 Motion Download Memorandum filed in support of defendants' motion to stay execution of the remand order pending appeal. 04/07/2021 Order Temporary stay of execution of remand order granted pending briefing on defendant's motion to stay. 04/01/2021 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal of order granting remand filed by defendants. 04/01/2021 Opposition Download Opposition filed to emergency motion for stay of remand order. 04/01/2021 Reply Download Reply filed by defendants in support of motion for emergency stay. 03/31/2021 Memorandum Opinion Download Motion to remand granted and motion to stay pending Supreme Court actions denied. The district court granted the State of Minnesota’s motion to remand its case, which asserts state law claims under common law and consumer protection statutes. The district court found that the defendants failed to establish that federal jurisdiction was warranted on any of the seven independent grounds they asserted: federal common law; presence of disputed and substantial federal issues (the Grable doctrine); the federal officer removal statute; the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; federal enclaves; the Class Action Fairness Act; and diversity. 03/31/2021 Motion Download Emergency motion for temporary stay of execution of the remand order filed by defendants. 03/12/2021 Response Download Response to plaintiff's notice of supplemental authority filed by FHR defendants. 03/09/2021 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority filed by Minnesota. 02/24/2021 Response Download Response filed by defendants to plaintiff's notice of supplemental authority (District of Hawai'i decision in Honolulu and Maui cases). 02/16/2021 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority filed by plaintiff (District of Hawai'i decision in Honolulu and Maui cases). 01/22/2021 Opposition Download Opposition filed by Minnesota to motion to stay. 01/15/2021 Memorandum Download Memorandum filed by FHR defendants in support of motion to stay. Three defendants in Minnesota’s case seeking to hold the fossil fuel industry liable for causing a “climate-change crisis” moved to stay the case and hold in abeyance a decision on Minnesota’s motion to remand until the Supreme Court issues a decision in the Baltimore case and on the petition for writ of certiorari in Oakland and San Francisco’s case. Minnesota opposed the stay. 01/15/2021 Motion Download Motion to stay filed by FHR defendants. 12/18/2020 Reply Download Reply filed by plaintiff in support of motion to remand to state court. 12/09/2020 Letter Download Letter submitted by defendants regarding Baltimore case pending in the Supreme Court. 11/09/2020 Opposition Download Brief filed by defendants in opposition to motion to remand. 09/10/2020 Memorandum of Law Download Memorandum of law filed in support of plaintiff's motion to remand to state court. 08/26/2020 Motion Download Motion to remand to state court filed by plaintiff. 07/27/2020 Notice of Removal Download Notice of removal filed. Fossil Fuel Defendants Removed Minnesota's Climate Case to Federal Court. Fossil fuel companies and other defendants removed Minnesota's climate change-based consumer protection cases to federal court. Minnesota’s case also involves other claims, including strict liability and negligent failure to warn claims. The defendants asserted multiple grounds for removal: that the cases raise disputed and substantial federal questions, that the claims necessarily arise under federal common law, that the claims arise out of federal enclaves, that federal-officer removal applies, that jurisdiction is proper under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, that the case is removable under the Class Action Fairness Act, and that diversity citizenship creates removal jurisdiction. -
American Petroleum Institute v. Minnesota
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 01/08/2024 Order List Download Certiorari denied. Supreme Court Declined to Consider Jurisdiction Question in Minnesota’s Case Against Fossil Fuel Defendants. The U.S. Supreme Court denied fossil fuel industry defendants’ petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmance of an order remanding to state court the State of Minnesota’s lawsuit seeking to hold the defendants liable for climate change harms. Justice Kavanaugh would have granted the petition. 01/03/2024 Supplement Download Supplemental brief submitted by respondent State of Minnesota in opposition to the petition for writ of certiorari. 11/08/2023 Reply Download Reply brief filed by petitioners. 09/21/2023 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by American Tort Reform Association in support of petitioner. 09/21/2023 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amicus curiae National Association of Manufacturers in support of petitioners. 09/21/2023 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America as amicus curiae supporting petitioners. Five amicus briefs were filed in support of fossil fuel industry defendants’ petition for writ of certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of the Eighth Circuit’s affirmance of the remand order in the State of Minnesota’s case. The amicus briefs were filed by American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce, American Tort Reform Association, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Association of Manufacturers, and 17 states led by Alabama. Minnesota’s response to the certiorari petition is due October 23. 09/21/2023 Amicus Motion Download Motion filed by Alabama and 16 other states for leave to file amici curiae brief in support of petitioners. 09/20/2023 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce as amicus curiae in support of petitioners. 08/18/2023 Petition for Writ of Certiorari Download Petition for writ of certiorari filed. Certiorari Petition Asked Supreme Court to Review Eighth Circuit Remand of Minnesota’s Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Industry Defendants. Fossil fuel industry defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of the Eighth Circuit’s affirmance of the remand to state court of the State of Minnesota’s lawsuit alleging that the defendants caused a “climate-change crisis” in the state through a “campaign of deception.” The petition presents the question of whether a federal district court has removal jurisdiction based on federal question jurisdiction “over putative state-law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of interstate greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate.” The defendants contended that the Eighth Circuit’s decision was incorrect and that it implicated “two circuit conflicts on important and recurring issues of federal law”: (1) whether the well-pleaded complaint rule precludes removal jurisdiction over claims necessarily and exclusively governed by federal common law but labeled as state-law claims and (2) “whether federal law necessarily and exclusively governs claims seeking redress for the alleged effect of interstate greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate.” The defendants acknowledged that the Court had recently declined review of these issues but argued that the Court’s intervention “has only become more pressing” because “similar cases will continue to proliferate, and similar claims could be brought against members of any number of industries that plaintiffs believe have contributed to climate change.” -
Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/17/2023 Not Available Download Mandate issued. 05/16/2023 Order Download Motion to stay the mandate denied. 04/28/2023 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiff regarding supplemental authority supporting opposition to motion to stay mandate. 04/21/2023 Response Download Response filed by plaintiff to motion to stay remand order. 04/13/2023 Order Download Issuance of mandate temporarily stayed. 04/12/2023 Motion Download Motion for stay of the mandate filed by the defendants-appellants. 03/23/2023 Opinion Download District court's judgment remanding case affirmed and appellants' petition for permission to appeal (21-8005) denied as moot. Eighth Circuit Rejected Arguments for Federal Jurisdiction in Minnesota’s Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Defendants. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the remand to state court of the State of Minnesota’s climate change lawsuit against fossil fuel industry defendants. In doing so, the court noted that it was joining five of its sister circuits in rejecting arguments for federal jurisdiction in climate change litigation brought by state and local governments. The Eighth Circuit concluded that Minnesota’s case—which asserts state common law fraud claims and violations of Minnesota consumer protection statutes—did not arise under federal law because the exceptions to the well-pleaded complaint rule for complete preemption and cases necessarily raising substantial and disputed federal questions (Grable jurisdiction) did not apply. With respect to complete preemption, the Eighth Circuit held that federal common law on transboundary pollution did not preempt Minnesota’s claim. Regarding Grable jurisdiction, the Eighth Circuit found that the defendants failed to identify elements of Minnesota’s claims that required a court to interpret federal common law or to “second-guess Congress’s cost-benefit rationales in allowing the production and sale of fossil fuels.” The Eighth Circuit also rejected other grounds for federal jurisdiction. First, the court found that requirements for jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) were not met because the alleged “misinformation campaign” was not an “operation” carried out on the Outer Continental Shelf and, in any event, the case did not have the requisite nexus to the defendants’ fossil fuel production on the Outer Continental Shelf. Second, the Eighth Circuit found that the case was not removable under the federal officer removal statute because the connection between Minnesota’s claims and any action under the direction of a federal officer (e.g., military fuel production, operations on the Outer Continental Shelf, and participation in strategic petroleum infrastructure) was too remote. Third, the Eighth Circuit held that the lawsuit was not a removable “class action” under the federal Class Action Fairness Act. One judge wrote a concurrence opining that the case should arise under federal law. The concurrence said Minnesota’s complaint “all but dares the companies to raise a federal-preemption defense” and that “no one doubts that they will or that it will be the focal point of the litigation.” The concurring opinion contended that in such a situation, there was “no reason” for the removal rules to block federal jurisdiction but noted that “only Congress or the Supreme Court gets to make that call.” 03/20/2023 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority submitted by State of Minnesota (Solicitor General brief regarding petition for writ of certiorari in Boulder County case). 10/20/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiff regarding defendants' October 4, 2022 letter. 10/04/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants to inform court of Supreme Court's invitation to the Solicitor General to submit U.S.'s views in Boulder case. 09/12/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants in response to plaintiff's September 7, 2022 letter. 09/07/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiff regarding supplemental authority (brief opposing certiorari in Boulder case). 08/31/2022 Response Download Response filed by appellants to Minnesota's citation of supplemental authority (Third Circuit decision in Hoboken/Delaware cases). 08/23/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by Minnesota regarding supplemental authority (Third Circuit decision in Hoboken/Delaware cases). 08/02/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants regarding letter from attorneys general to EPA. 08/01/2022 Response Download Response filed by defendants to Minnesota's citation of supplemental authority (Ninth Circuit decision in Honolulu/Maui cases). 07/19/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiff-appellee regarding supplemental authority (Ninth Circuit decision in Honolulu/Maui cases). 07/06/2022 Letter Download Response filed by plaintiff-appellee to defendants-appellants' supplemental authority (letter from President Biden regarding increase in fossil fuel production). 06/30/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiff in response to defendants' June 17, 2022 letter regarding supplemental authority. 06/17/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants in response to plaintiff's letter regarding supplemental authority (First Circuit decision in Rhode Island's case). 05/27/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by Minnesota regarding citations of supplemental authority (Fourth Circuit decision in Baltimore case and First Circuit decision in Rhode Island case). 05/03/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by appellants in response to Minnesota's supplemental authorities (appellate court decisions in County of San Mateo and Baltimore cases). 04/26/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by Minnesota regarding supplemental authority (Ninth Circuit decision in County of San Mateo case). 04/13/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by Minnesota regarding supplemental authority (Fourth Circuit decision in Baltimore case). 03/15/2022 Not Available Oral argument was held in the Eighth Circuit on March 15 before Judges L. Steven Grasz, David R. Stras, and Jonathan A. Kobes. 03/09/2022 Letter Download Letter submitted by appellants in response to appellee's letter regarding the Hawai'i state court's decision on motion to dismiss in Honolulu case. 03/02/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by appellants in response to Minnesota's citation of supplemental authorities (Tenth Circuit decision affirming remand order in Boulder case). 03/01/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by Minnesota to submit supplemental authority (Hawai'i Circuit Court denial of motion to dismiss Honolulu's case). 02/24/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by appellants in response to Minnesota's citation of supplemental authorities regarding federal-officer removal jurisdiction. 02/15/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by Minnesota to submit supplemental authority (Tenth Circuit decision affirming remand order in Boulder case). 02/11/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by appellants in response to Minnesota's citation of supplemental authorities (case regarding federal-officer removal jurisdiction and remand order in Delaware case). 02/11/2022 Notice Oral argument scheduled. Eighth Circuit to Hear Oral Argument in Appeal of Remand Order in Minnesota’s Climate Case. Oral argument was set for March 15, 2022 in fossil fuel industry defendants’ Eighth Circuit appeal of the remand order in Minnesota’s climate case. The case will be heard before Judges L. Steven Grasz, David R. Stras, and Jonathan A. Kobes. The argument begins at 9 AM. 01/20/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiff-appellee regarding citations of supplemental authority on federal-officer removal jurisdiction. 01/18/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by appellants in response to appellee's letter regarding supplemental authorities on federal-officer removal jurisdiction. 01/13/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiff-appellee regarding citation of supplemental authority (remand order in Delaware case and case concerning Grable jurisdiction). 01/07/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiff regarding supplemental authority. 08/26/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Natural Resources Defense Council as amicus curiae in support of appellee and affirmance. 08/26/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief of amicus curiae Public Citizen filed in support of appellee and affirmance. 08/26/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amici curiae Robert Brulle et al. in support of plaintiff-appellee and affirmance. 08/26/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by scholars of foreign relations and federal courts as amici curiae in support of plaintiff-appellee for affirmance. 08/25/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by National League of Cities et al. as amici curiae in support of plaintiff-appellee and affirmance. 08/25/2021 Amicus Brief Download Amicus curiae brief filed by State of Washington et al. in support of the State of Minnesota and affirmance of the district court's opinion. 08/19/2021 Brief Download Response brief filed by plaintiff-appellee. 06/23/2021 Amicus Motion Download Motion filed for leave to file brief of amicus curiae Energy Policy Advocates in support of defendants-appellants. On June 23, 2021, the nonprofit corporation Energy Policy Advocates filed a motion for leave to file amicus brief in support of the defendants-appellants. The amicus brief said Energy Policy Advocates had made “tenacious use of public-records laws” to document the “troubling origin” of the State’s lawsuit. The group argued that the case originated with “activists and lobbyists who desire to impact national climate policy,” and that federal courts therefore should adjudicate the case. The group also argued that concerns about state court bias were amplified in this case. 06/17/2021 Brief Download Brief filed by appellants. On June 17, 2021, the fossil fuel industry defendants-appellants filed their opening brief in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for their appeal of the remand order in the State of Minnesota’s lawsuit. They argued that removal was proper because Minnesota’s claims arose under federal law and necessarily raised substantial and disputed federal issues, and also based on the federal-officer removal statute, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and the Class Action Fairness Act. 05/18/2021 Order Motion for extension of time to file an opening brief granted in part. The Eighth Circuit also extended the fossil fuel industry appellants’ time to file their opening brief in their appeal of the district court’s remand order to take into account the Supreme Court’s decision in Baltimore. The opening brief is due June 16, 2021. 05/17/2021 Letter Download Letter from Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation regarding Supreme Court's decision in Baltimore case. 05/17/2021 Response Download Response filed by plaintiff-appellee to appellants' amended motion for an extension of time to file appellant brief. 05/12/2021 Reply Reply filed in support of motion to extend time to file opening brief. 05/11/2021 Response Download Response filed by plaintiff-appellee to appellants' motion for an extension of time to file appellant brief. 05/05/2021 Motion Download Motion filed by appellants for an extension of time to file appellant brief. -
American Petroleum Institute v. Minnesota
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 04/27/2021 Order Download Petition for permission to appeal held in abeyance. 04/22/2021 Opposition Download Answer filed by respondent in opposition to petition for permission to appeal. 04/13/2021 Petition Download Petition for permission to appeal pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act filed by defendants. -
State v. American Petroleum Institute
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/24/2020 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Minnesota Filed Lawsuit Charging that Fossil Fuel Defendants’ “Campaign of Deception” Led to Climate Crisis. The State of Minnesota filed a lawsuit in state court against the American Petroleum Institute, Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon), Koch Industries, Inc. (Koch), and Exxon and Koch subsidiaries, alleging that the defendants caused a “climate-change crisis” in the state through a “campaign of deception.” The State alleged that it sought “to hold Defendants accountable for deliberately undermining the science of climate change, purposefully downplaying the role that the purchase and consumption of their products played in causing climate change and the potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change, and for failing to fully inform the consumers and the public of their understanding that without swift action, it would be too late to ward off the devastation.” The complaint asserted a claim under the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act as well as claims of strict and negligent liability for failure to warn; common law fraud and misrepresentation; deceptive trade practices under Minnesota Statutes § 325D.44; and violation of Minnesota’s False Statement in Advertising Act. Minnesota asked the court to order the defendants to publish all research conducted by the defendants and their agents that relates to climate change and to “fund a corrective public education campaign in Minnesota relating to the issue of climate change.” In addition, Minnesota sought civil penalties, restitution “to remedy the great harm and injury to the State resulting from Defendants’ unlawful conduct,” and disgorgement of profits resulting from unlawful conduct. In addition, Minnesota asked the court to award attorney’s fees and other costs of investigation and litigation.