Description: City of Baltimore lawsuit seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for climate change impacts.
-
BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 10/14/2022 Petition for Writ of Certiorari Download Petition for writ of certiorari filed. Fossil Fuel Companies Asked Supreme Court to Review Remand Decision in Baltimore Case. On October 14, 2022, fossil fuel companies filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Fourth Circuit’s decision affirming the remand order in the climate change case brought by the Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. The petition presents the same two questions as the pending petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Tenth Circuit’s affirmance of the remand order in Colorado local governments’ climate case: (1) Whether federal common law necessarily and exclusively governs claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of interstate greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate; and (2) Whether a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 over claims necessarily and exclusively governed by federal common law but labeled as arising under state law. Baltimore requested a 30-day extension for the filing of its response to the petition. 08/01/2022 Order Application for extension of time granted. Deadline for Certiorari Petition in Baltimore Climate Case Extended to October 14. On August 1, 2022, Chief Justice John Roberts granted energy companies’ application for an extension of time within which to file a petition for writ of certiorari for review of the Fourth Circuit’s decision affirming the remand order in Baltimore’s climate change lawsuit against the companies. The deadline for filing a petition for writ of certiorari is now October 14, 2022. 07/27/2022 Application Download Companies filed application for an extension of time within which to file a petition for writ of certiorari. -
Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/17/2022 Order Download Petition for rehearing en banc denied. 05/12/2022 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by Indiana and 14 other states in support of appellants' petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. 05/05/2022 Petition for Rehearing Download Petition for rehearing en banc filed. Fourth Circuit Denied Rehearing en Banc of Remand Order in Baltimore Case. On May 17, 2022, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied energy companies’ petition for rehearing en banc of the court’s affirmance of a district court’s order remanding Baltimore’s climate change case against the companies to state court. The companies had argued that the panel’s decision “squarely conflicts” with the Second Circuit’s decision dismissing New York City’s case against energy companies and that the panel’s application of the well-pleaded complaint rule was at odds with Fourth Circuit precedent. 04/07/2022 Opinion Download Remand order affirmed. Fourth Circuit Affirmed Order Remanding Baltimore’s Climate Case to State Court. For a second time, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the City of Baltimore’s lawsuit seeking to hold oil and gas companies liable for climate change harms should proceed in state court. In its first decision in 2020, the Fourth Circuit concluded that it could only address whether the case had been properly removed under the federal-officer removal statute and found that the case had not been properly removed. The Supreme Court vacated that decision in 2021, holding that federal appellate courts could consider all grounds for removal when federal-officer removal is one of the asserted grounds for removal. In this second decision, the Fourth Circuit again rejected federal-officer removal as a basis for subject matter jurisdiction based on its earlier analysis and also rejected the seven other grounds for removal asserted by the oil and gas companies. First, the Fourth Circuit rejected the contention that Baltimore’s claims were necessarily governed by federal common law, finding that the well-pleaded complaint rule would bar removal because Baltimore’s complaint did not expressly invoke federal common law and also that it was not appropriate to create federal common law for the issues raised by the complaint. The court found that even if control of interstate pollution, energy independence, and multilateral treaties qualified as “uniquely federal interests” that could justify creation of federal common law, the companies failed to establish a significant conflict between state-law claims and the federal interests. In addition, the Fourth Circuit concluded that removal based on federal common law would not be proper where any previously existing federal common law had been displaced by the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. Second, the Fourth Circuit found that the companies failed to establish Grable jurisdiction because Baltimore’s complaint did not “necessarily raise” any of the federal issues identified by the companies, including balancing of the costs and benefits of fossil fuel extraction or federal duties to disclose. The court also found that the companies “wrongly” relied on the foreign-affairs doctrine in the Grable context as a basis for federal jurisdiction. Third, the Fourth Circuit held that the Clean Air Act did not completely preempt Baltimore’s state-law claims. Fourth, the court rejected the companies’ argument that their operations within federal enclaves conferred federal jurisdiction. The court noted that all of Baltimore’s alleged harms were pleaded “within the confines and boundaries of Baltimore City” and specifically to non-federal lands. Fifth, the Fourth Circuit found no jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, holding that the companies did not demonstrate the required but-for connection between Baltimore’s claims and the companies’ exploration and production of fossil fuels on the Outer Continental Shelf. Sixth, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the bankruptcy removal statute did not provide grounds for removal. The court found both that the defendants failed to show that Baltimore’s lawsuit had a “close nexus” or was “related” to any bankruptcy involving predecessors, subsidiaries, or affiliates of the defendants and also that an exception to bankruptcy removal was applicable because Baltimore was a governmental unit exercising its police power. Seventh, the Fourth Circuit rejected admiralty jurisdiction as a basis for removal, finding that the defendants did not show how their floating rigs and platforms qualified as “vessels” for the “location test” of admiralty jurisdiction. 01/21/2022 Letter Download Response filed by defendants-appellants to plaintiffs-appellee's citation of supplemental authorities regarding Grable jurisdiction. 01/20/2022 Letter Download Response filed by defendants-appellants to plaintiff-appellee's citation of supplemental authorities (remand order in Delaware case). 01/14/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiff-appellee regarding citation of supplemental authorities regarding Grable jurisdiction. 01/14/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiff-appellee regarding citation of supplemental authorities (remand order in Delaware case). 12/16/2021 Notification Download Oral argument notification issued. January 25 Oral Argument Scheduled for Jurisdictional Issues in Baltimore Climate Case. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled oral argument for January 25, 2022 in fossil fuel companies’ appeal of the remand order in Baltimore’s climate change case. The Fourth Circuit will consider the companies’ arguments that Baltimore’s claims arise under federal law and that there is federal jurisdiction because the claims arise out of the defendants’ operations on the Outer Continental Shelf. 11/03/2021 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron in response to plaintiff's citation of supplemental authority. 10/29/2021 Letter Download Letter submitted by plaintiff-appellee regarding citation of supplemental authorities. 09/28/2021 Reply Download Supplemental reply brief filed by appellants. 09/17/2021 Letter Download Letter filed by Baltimore submitting City of Hoboken v. Exxon Mobil Corp. as supplemental authority. 09/14/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief of amici curiae municipal organizations in support of plaintiff-appellee. 09/14/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief of amici curiae Robert Brulle et al. filed in support of plaintiff-appellee and affirmance. 09/14/2021 Amicus Brief Download Supplemental brief of amicus curiae Natural Resources Defense Council filed in support of appellee and affirmance. 09/14/2021 Amicus Brief Download Supplemental brief filed by Maryland and other states as amici curiae supporting plaintiff-appellee. 09/13/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by scholars of foreign relations and federal courts as amici curiae in support of plaintiff-appellee for affirmance. 09/07/2021 Brief Download Supplemental brief filed by plaintiff-appellee. 08/13/2021 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by Indiana and 13 other states in support of appellants and reversal. 08/13/2021 Amicus Motion Download Motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support of defendants-appellants filed by Energy Policy Advocates. 08/13/2021 Amicus Motion Download Motion to file amici curiae brief in support of appellants and reversal filed by National Association of Manufacturers et al. 08/13/2021 Amicus Motion Download Motion for leave to file supplemental brief in support of appellants and reversal filed by amicus curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. 08/06/2021 Brief Download Supplemental opening brief filed by appellants. The fossil companies argued that Baltimore’s claims arise under federal law and also that the action was removable pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act because it has a connection with the companies’ activities on the outer continental shelf. 07/26/2021 Order Download Amended supplemental briefing order issued. In their supplemental brief to the Fourth Circuit, the fossil fuel companies’ supplemental opening brief was scheduled to be due August 6, 2021, with the supplemental response brief due September 7, and any supplemental reply brief due September 28. 07/07/2021 Order Download Supplemental briefing order issued. 06/29/2021 Notice Download Notice filed by plaintiff-appellee of non-opposition to defendants-appellants' consent motion for leave to file supplemental briefing. 06/22/2021 Consent Motion Download Consent motion filed by appellants for supplemental briefing and oral argument. 03/30/2020 Not Available Download Mandate issued. 03/06/2020 Opinion Download Order granting motion to remand affirmed. Fourth Circuit Affirmed Remand of Baltimore’s Climate Change Case Against Fossil Fuel Companies. On March 6, 2020, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to reverse a remand order that returned the City of Baltimore’s climate change case against fossil fuel companies to state court. The district court had rejected all eight of the defendants’ grounds for removal, but the Fourth Circuit held that its appellate jurisdiction was limited to the issue of whether the defendants properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute. The Fourth Circuit cited decades-old Fourth Circuit precedent limiting the scope of review of remand orders to grounds specifically exempted from the statutory bar on appellate review, including federal-officer removal. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that a Supreme Court decision on the scope of interlocutory review had abrogated this precedent. The Fourth Circuit also concluded that the Removal Clarification Act of 2011 did not authorize “plenary review” of remand orders. Regarding the application of federal-officer removal in this case, the Fourth Circuit found that none of the three contractual relationships on which the defendants based removal were sufficient to justify such removal, either because the relationships failed to satisfy the requirement that the defendants were “acting under” a federal officer or because the contractual relationships were “insufficiently related” to Baltimore’s claims. The first contractual relationship consisted of fuel supply agreements between one defendant and the Navy Exchange Service Command; the court said these agreements contained provisions “typical of any commercial agreement” and did not satisfy the “acting under” requirement. The second contractual relationship was oil and gas leases administered under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; the court found that these agreements did not satisfy the “acting under” requirement and, moreover, that the defendants “did not plausibly assert that the charged conduct was carried out ‘for or relating to’ the alleged official authority, given the ‘wide array of conduct’ for which they were sued,” including alleged “concealment and misrepresentation of the products’ known dangers—and simultaneous promotion of their unrestrained use.” The third contractual relationship was a 1944 agreement between one defendant’s predecessor and the Navy for joint operation of a strategic petroleum reserve; the Fourth Circuit concluded this agreement did not satisfy the “acting under” requirement and that its relationship to Baltimore’s claims was too attenuated. 03/05/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiff-appellee in response to Chevron Corporation's February 27, 2020 letter concerning supplemental authority related to federal-officer removal. 02/27/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation regarding supplemental authority concerning federal-officer removal. 02/03/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiff-appellee in response to Chevron Corporation's January 29, 2020 letter concerning Juliana. 01/29/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation regarding supplemental authority. Chevron Corporation submitted a letter asserting that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Juliana v. United States supported the companies’ argument that the climate change claims asserted by local and state governments against the companies “have their source in federal law and therefore belong in federal court.” 01/23/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation in response to plaintiffs-appellees' January 6, 2020 letter concerning supplemental authority. 01/06/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees regarding supplemental authority. 12/31/2019 Response Download Response filed by plaintiff-appellee to defendants-appellants' December 19, 2019 notice of supplemental authority. 12/19/2019 Notice Download Notice submitted by Chevron Corporation regarding supplemental authority. 12/13/2019 Response Download Response filed by plaintiff-appellee in response to defendants-appellants' December 12, 2019 letter. The plaintiffs responded that the court should disregard the defendants’ submission because it was an inappropriate attempt to supplement the evidentiary record and have the court make new factual findings. The plaintiffs further argued that the supplemental materials did not support federal-officer removal jurisdiction. 12/12/2019 Letter Download Letter submitted by appellants in response to court's question at oral argument. After the argument, the defendants submitted a letter and other documents in response to a question from the court regarding whether the federal government had exercised its right to extract petroleum form the Elk Hills Reserve. The defendants said that a 1976 law gave the Secretary of the Navy authority to sell or otherwise dispose of the U.S. share of the petroleum produced from such reserves and that the government had final authority over all production, which was carried out by defendant Chevron Corporation’s predecessor Standard Oil. The defendants also submitted a General Accounting Office report that indicated that Chevron and the government shared production, revenues, and expenses in proportion to their ownership shares. 12/11/2019 Not Available Oral argument held. 12/06/2019 Response Download Response filed by Chevron to plaintiff-appellee's December 2, 2019 notice of supplemental authority. 12/02/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiff-appellee regarding supplemental authority. 10/18/2019 Notice Oral argument scheduled for December 11, 2019. 10/01/2019 Order Download Motion for stay pending appeal denied. Fourth Circuit Declined to Stay Remand Order in Baltimore’s Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Companies. On October 1, 2019, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied fossil fuel companies’ motion for a stay pending their appeal of the district court order remanding Baltimore’s climate change lawsuit against the companies to state court. 09/30/2019 Order Download Court tentatively calendared case for oral argument. On September 30, 2019, the Fourth Circuit tentatively calendared oral argument on the companies’ appeal for the December 10–12 argument session. 09/18/2019 Reply Download Reply brief filed by appellants. 09/10/2019 Notice Download Letter filed by plaintiff-appellee to notify the court of the District of Colorado remand order in Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. 09/03/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by National League of Cities et al. in support of plaintiff-appellee and affirmance. Amicus Briefs Filed in Support of Remand. Seven amicus briefs were filed in support of Baltimore. Amicus parties included (1) three organizations representing the interests of local governments; (2) a group of scholars and scientists “with strong interests, education, and experience in the environment and the science of climate change, with particular interest in public information and communication about climate change and how the public and public leaders learn about and understand climate change,” along with organizations that advocate for climate change policies; (3) Natural Resources Defense Council; (4) a group of climate scientists and scholars that submitted a brief to assist the court with its “understanding of the relevant science and the unavoidable adaptation expenses … communities are facing”; (5) nine states; (6) Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Edward Markey; and (7) Public Citizen, which expressed concern about improper invocation of removal jurisdiction. 09/03/2019 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed in support of plaintiff-appellee and affirmance by amici curiae Robert Brulle et al. 09/03/2019 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed in support of plaintiff-appellee and affirmance by amici curiae Mario Molina et al. 09/03/2019 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed in support of plaintiff-appellee and affirmance by amicus curiae Natural Resources Defense Council. 09/03/2019 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed in support of appellees and affirmance by amicus curiae Public Citizen, Inc. 09/03/2019 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by states as amici curiae supporting plaintiff-appellee. 09/03/2019 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed in support of appellees and affirmance by amici curiae Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Edward J. Markey. 08/27/2019 Brief Download Response brief filed. Baltimore Said Fourth Circuit Should Reject Appeal of Remand Order in Climate Case. On August 27, 2019, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (Baltimore) filed a brief arguing that the Fourth Circuit should reject oil and gas companies’ appeal of a district court’s order remanding Baltimore’s climate change lawsuit to state court. Baltimore argued that the appellate court only had jurisdiction to consider the companies’ argument that the federal-officer removal statute provided jurisdiction; Baltimore further argued that the district court correctly rejected this basis for removal. In addition, Baltimore contended that the district court properly rejected the companies’ other asserted grounds for removal. 08/23/2019 Reply Download Reply filed by defendants in support of motion for stay pending appeal. 08/16/2019 Opposition Download Opposition to stay pending appeal filed by plaintiff-appellee. 08/09/2019 Motion Download Motion for stay pending appeal filed by defendant.s 08/02/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in support of appellants and reversal. 07/29/2019 Brief Download Opening brief filed by appellants. Briefing began in the Fourth Circuit on oil and gas companies' appeal of an order remanding Baltimore's climate change case against them to state court. The companies filed their opening brief on July 29, 2019. They argued that the Fourth Circuit has jurisdiction to consider their appeal and that Baltimore’s claims were properly removed on multiple grounds. Baltimore’s response brief is due by August 27, 2019, and any reply brief is due within 21 days of service of the response brief. -
BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/17/2021 Opinion Download Fourth Circuit judgment affirming remand order vacated, and case remanded for Fourth Circuit to consider defendants' other grounds for removal. In Baltimore’s Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Companies, Supreme Court Held that Appellate Review of Remand Order Extends to All Grounds for Removal. In a 7-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that its review of the remand order in Baltimore’s climate change case against fossil fuel companies was limited to determining whether the defendants properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute. The Court declined to review the companies’ other grounds for removal, finding that the “wiser course” was to allow the Fourth Circuit to address them in the first instance. The Court’s decision concerned the interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), which provides that “an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 [the federal officer removal statute] or 1443 [removal statute for civil rights cases] of this title shall be reviewable by appeal.” The Court concluded that the ordinary meaning of “order” in Section 1447(d) would include “the whole of a district court’s ‘order,’ not just some of its parts or pieces.” The Court was not persuaded by arguments that exceptions to the general bar on appellate review of remand orders should be construed narrowly or that Congress would have expressly directed that appellate courts should review all aspects of remand orders had that been its intention. In addition, the Court cited its decision in Yamaha Motor Corp., U. S. A. v. Calhoun, 516 U. S. 199 (1996)—which concerned the scope of appellate review of orders certified for appeal by district courts—as its “most analogous precedent.” The Court found that Yamaha resolved any doubts about Section 1447(d)’s interpretation with its holding that appellate courts could address any questions contained in a district court order certified for appeal. The Court said other precedents cited by Baltimore “were driven by concerns unique to their statutory contexts.” Nor was the Court persuaded by the argument that Congress ratified lower appellate court interpretations limiting the scope of review for remand orders cases removed under Section 1443 when it enacted the exception for the federal officer removal statute. The Court stated that “[i]t seems most unlikely to us that a smattering of lower court opinions could ever represent the sort of ‘judicial consensus so broad and unquestioned that we must presume Congress knew of and endorsed it.’” Responding to policy concerns regarding efficiency raised by Baltimore, the Court first noted that policy arguments could not prevail over “a clear statutory directive” and found, moreover, that Section 1447(d) “tempers its obvious concern with efficiency” by providing for the exceptions to the bar on appellate review in the first place. The Court also suggested that a “fuller form of appellate review” could serve the cause of efficiency. In response to the concern that its interpretation would “invite gamesmanship,” the Court again said policy concerns could not override plain meaning and also noted that in any event Congress had addressed this policy concern by allowing courts to sanction frivolous arguments. Justice Sotomayor dissented, writing that she believed the Court’s interpretation would allow defendants to “sidestep” the general bar on appellate review by “shoehorning” a civil rights or federal officer removal argument into their case for removal. She also was persuaded that Congress had ratified the lower appellate court decisions holding that there was a narrower scope of review. Justice Alito did not take part in the case. 01/19/2021 Not Available Oral argument heard by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Held Oral Argument on Scope of Appellate Review of Remand Order in Baltimore Climate Case. On January 19, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in fossil fuel companies’ appeal of a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision affirming an order remanding to state court the City of Baltimore’s climate change case against the companies. The justices are considering the question of whether the scope of appellate review of the remand order extends to all of the bases for removal rejected by the district court, or only to the district court’s rejection of removal under the federal-officer removal statute. Coverage of the oral argument is available here. 01/08/2021 Order List Download Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted. Supreme Court to Hear Arguments on Scope of Appellate Review of Remand Orders in Baltimore Case. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument on January 19, 2021 in fossil fuel companies’ appeal of a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision affirming an order remanding to state court the City of Baltimore’s climate change case against the companies. On January 8, the Court granted the Acting Solicitor General’s motion for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae in support of the companies. The companies identified the question for review as whether the statutory provision prescribing the scope of appellate review of remand orders “permits a court of appeals to review any issue encompassed in a district court’s order remanding a removed case to state court where the removing defendant premised removal in part on the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1443.” In its brief filed on December 16, Baltimore defined the question as whether the statutory provision “entitles a defendant, by including a meritless federal-officer or civil-rights ground for federal jurisdiction in a removal petition, to appellate review of every ground for removal rejected by the district court’s remand order.” The district court rejected eight grounds for removal, but the Fourth Circuit concluded its appellate jurisdiction was limited to determining whether the companies properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute. In December, six amicus briefs were filed in support of Baltimore—by state and local government groups, environmental groups, six senators, law professors who teach and write on civil procedure and the federal courts, 19 states and the District of Columbia, and Boulder County, San Miguel County, and the City of Boulder in Colorado. 12/23/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Boulder County, San Miguel County, and the City of Boulder, Colorado, as amici curiae in support of respodnent. 12/23/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amici curiae Chesapeake Bay Foundation Natural Resources Defense Council in support of respondent. 12/23/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amici curiae Erwin Chemerinsky et al. in support of respondent and affirmance. 12/23/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amici curiae Senators Whitehouse, Cardin, Blumenthal, Warren, Markey, and Van Hollen in support of respondent. 12/23/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by 19 states and the District of Columbia as amici curiae in support of respondent. 12/22/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by state and local government groups as amici curiae in support of respondent. 12/16/2020 Brief Download Brief filed by respondent Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 11/25/2020 Notice Download Oral Argument Scheduled for January 19. The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument for January 19, 2021 in fossil fuel companies’ appeal of a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision affirming an order remanding to state court the City of Baltimore’s climate change case against the companies. 11/23/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by American Petroleum Institute as amicus curiae in support of petitioners. 11/23/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief field by Energy Policy Advocates as amicus curiae in support of petitioners. 11/23/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as amici curiae in support of petitioners. 11/23/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by National Association of Manufacturers et al. as amici curiae in support of petitioners. 11/23/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Indiana and 12 other states as amici curiae in support of petitioners. 11/23/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by United States as amicus curiae supporting petitioners The United States argued in support of the petitioners for the broader scope of appellate review of remand orders and noted its “significant interest” as “a frequent litigant” in “the application of statutory provisions governing federal appellate jurisdiction.” 11/23/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America as amicus curiae in support of petitioners. 11/23/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Washington Legal Foundation as amicus curiae in support of petitioners. 11/20/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amicus curiae DRI–The Voice of the Defense Bar in support of petitioners. 11/18/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Atlantic Legal Foundation as amicus curiae in support of petitioners. 11/16/2020 Brief Download Brief filed by the petitioners. Briefs Filed in Supreme Court Arguing for Broader Appellate Review of Remand Order in Baltimore Climate Case. The companies filed their brief on November 16, arguing that the Fourth Circuit erred by concluding that it was limited to reviewing removal based on the federal-officer removal statute. The companies also argued that the Court should preserve judicial resources when rectifying this error by addressing the other grounds for removal and reversing the Fourth Circuit’s judgment. The brief argued in particular that the Court should hold that Baltimore’s claims “necessarily and exclusively arise under federal common law.” Alternatively, the companies asked that the Court vacate the judgment and remand to the Fourth Circuit to address the other grounds for removal raised by the companies. Ten amicus briefs were filed in support of the petitioners, including by the United States. 10/02/2020 Order List Download Petition for writ of certiorari granted. In Baltimore’s Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Companies, Supreme Court Agreed to Consider Scope of Appellate Review of Remand Order. On October 2, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court granted fossil fuel companies’ petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Fourth Circuit’s order remanding to state court Baltimore’s climate change case against the companies. Justice Alito did not participate in the consideration or decision of the petition. The question the Supreme Court agreed to consider is whether the statutory provision prescribing the scope of appellate review of remand orders “permits a court of appeals to review any issue encompassed in a district court’s order remanding a removed case to state court where the removing defendant premised removal in part on the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1443.” The district court rejected eight grounds for removal, but the Fourth Circuit concluded its appellate jurisdiction was limited to determining whether the companies properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute. 07/23/2020 Supplement Download Supplemental brief filed by respondent. 07/15/2020 Not Available Petition for writ of certiorari distributed for September 29, 2020 conference. 07/15/2020 Reply Download Reply brief filed for petitioners. 06/29/2020 Brief Download Brief filed by Mayor & City Council of Baltimore in opposition to petition for writ of certiorari. Baltimore Argued that Supreme Court Should Decline to Review Decision Affirming Remand of Climate Case to State Court. Baltimore filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the Court should deny oil and gas companies’ petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Fourth Circuit’s affirmance of a remand order in Baltimore’s climate change case. Baltimore’s brief said there were three principal reasons why the certiorari petition should be denied. First, Baltimore contended that a “purported circuit split” on the issues of the scope of appellate review of remand orders was “insignificant at best.” Second, Baltimore contended that these issues were “not likely to recur with any frequency.” Third, Baltimore argued that the Fourth Circuit’s interpretation of the removal statute was “consistent with the statutory text and strict limitations Congress has historically placed on appellate review of remand orders.” 04/30/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief of amicus curiae Energy Policy Advocates filed in support of petitioners. 04/30/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief of amicus curiae National Association of Manufacturers filed in support of petitioner. 04/30/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by 13 states as amici curiae in support of petitioners. 04/30/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by U.S. Chamber of Commerce as amicus curiae in support of petitioners. 04/24/2020 Order Motion to extend time to file a response granted. Supreme Court Granted Baltimore’s Request for More Time to Response to Petition Seeking Review of Remand Order Due to Burdens Imposed by COVID-19. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Baltimore’s request for a 60-day extension of time to file a response to fossil fuel companies’ petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Fourth Circuit’s affirmance of the remand order in Baltimore’s case. Baltimore said it sought the extension due to the “extraordinary circumstances” of the COVID-19 pandemic, which placed an “enormous unanticipated burden” on Baltimore and its counsel. The fossil fuel companies asked the court to grant only a 30-day extension. Their letter to the Court noted that Baltimore was actively litigating the case in state court and that “nearly identical” cases were pending in other state courts. The companies noted that they had filed their petition “expeditiously” and that allowing a 60-day extension instead of a shorter extension would delay consideration of the petition until the next term. The Court granted Baltimore’s request without comment, setting a deadline of June 29, 2020 for the filing of a response. 04/23/2020 Reply Download Reply filed in support of respondent's motion to extend time to file response. 04/21/2020 Response Download Response filed by petitioners to the respondent's motion to extend time to file a response. 04/17/2020 Motion Download Motion filed by respondent to extend time to file response to petition for writ of certiorari. 03/31/2020 Petition for Writ of Certiorari Download Petition for writ of certiorari filed. Companies Sought Supreme Court Review of Remand Order. On March 31, 2020, the defendants filed a certiorari petition in the Supreme Court, seeking review of the question of whether the statutory provision prescribing the scope of appellate review of remand orders “permits a court of appeals to review any issue encompassed in a district court’s order remanding a removed case to state court where the removing defendant premised removal in part on the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1443.” Baltimore’s response to the petition is due on April 30. -
BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 10/22/2019 Order Download Application for stay denied. On October 22, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court denied fossil fuel companies’ application for a stay pending appeal of a district court’s remand order returning Baltimore’s lawsuit seeking to hold the companies liable for impacts of climate change. The application was presented to Chief Justice Roberts, the circuit justice for the Fourth Circuit, who referred the application to the Court. The Court’s order denying the application indicated that Justice Alito did not take part in the consideration or decision of the application. The companies’ appeal of the remand order in Baltimore’s case has been fully briefed in the Fourth Circuit and is scheduled for oral argument on December 11. As of November 5, the district court in Maryland had not yet issued an order to lift its temporary stay on the remand order. 10/18/2019 Opposition Download Opposition filed to application for stay of remand order pending appeal. 10/04/2019 Amicus Motion Download National Association of Manufacturers filed motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support of the application to stay the remand order pending appeal. 10/01/2019 Application Download Defendants filed application to stay district court's remand order pending appeal and request for immediate administrative stay. Companies Sought Stay from Supreme Court. On the same day that the Fourth Circuit denied the fossil fuel companies' motion for a stay pending appeal of the district court's remand order, the companies filed an application for a stay in the U.S. Supreme Court. The application was directed to Chief Justice John Roberts, the circuit justice for the Fourth Circuit. -
Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 11/12/2019 Letter Download Letter sent by clerk of court to Circuit Court for Baltimore City regarding remand. 11/12/2019 Order Download Order issued lifting stay of execution of remand order. 11/08/2019 Motion Download Unopposed motion to lift stay of execution of remand order filed by plaintiff. 10/04/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants informing court that plaintiffs would not move to lift current stay in light of Supreme Court's request for response to application for stay by October 18, 2019. 10/02/2019 Order Download Court granted motion to temporarily extend stay of remand order pending resolution of stay application to the Supreme Court. On October 2, 2019, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to temporarily extend its stay of the remand order until the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the application for a stay. (The district court previously extended the stay of the remand order pending the Fourth Circuit’s resolution of the companies’ stay motion.) The district court said Baltimore could seek to rescind the temporary extension “as improvidently granted” by filing a motion by October 7. 10/01/2019 Motion Download Motion filed by defendants to temporarily extend stay of remand order pending resolution of stay application to the Supreme Court. 07/31/2019 Memorandum Download Defendants' motion for stay denied. Maryland Federal Court Declined to Stay Remand Order in Baltimore’s Climate Case Against Oil and Gas Companies; Stay to Remain in Place While Companies Seek Stay in Fourth Circuit. On July 31, 2019, the federal district court for the District of Maryland denied oil and gas companies’ motion for a stay of the June 10 remand order returning the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore’s (Baltimore’s) climate change lawsuit to state court. The companies had sought to stay the remand order until the Fourth Circuit resolves their appeal. Instead, a stay agreed to by Baltimore will remain in place pending the resolution of the companies’ anticipated motion for a stay in the Fourth Circuit. Although the district court agreed with the companies that removal of the case based on application of federal law raised “complex and unsettled” legal questions, the court concluded that appellate jurisdiction in this case would likely extend only to the issue of whether the case was properly removed under the federal officer removal statute, an issue on which the court concluded the companies had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success. The court further found that the companies had not demonstrated irreparable harm since the appeal would only be rendered moot in the event a state court entered final judgment before the appeal was resolved. The court also was not persuaded that the cost of litigating in state court would cause irreparable injury and disagreed with the companies’ contention that federal courts were “uniquely qualified” to address the issues presented in the case. Regarding the harm to the opposing party and weighing the public interest, the district court found that the impacts of further delay of litigation on the merits of Baltimore’s claims weighed against a stay. The court also noted that even if the remand order were vacated, interim proceedings in state court “may well advance” the case’s resolution in federal court. 07/22/2019 Reply Download Reply filed by defendants in support of their motion to extend the stay pending appeal. 07/08/2019 Response Download Opposition filed by plaintiff to defendants' motion to extend the stay pending appeal. 06/24/2019 Order Download Consent order so-ordered. 06/23/2019 Motion Download Memorandum of law filed in support of defendants' motion to extend the stay pending appeal. 06/23/2019 Stipulation Download Joint stipulation and proposed consent order filed to extend the current temporary stay of the execution of the remand order. 06/20/2019 Memorandum Opinion Download Memorandum opinion issued for publication. 06/13/2019 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed. 06/10/2019 Memorandum Opinion Download Motion to remand granted; execution of remand order stayed for 30 days as stipulated by the parties. Federal Court Said Baltimore’s Climate Case Against Oil and Gas Companies Belonged in State Court. The federal district court for the District of Maryland remanded the City of Baltimore’s climate change lawsuit against oil and gas companies to state court. The court concluded that federal question jurisdiction did not exist and also rejected alternative bases for federal jurisdiction. First, the court rejected the defendants’ argument that federal common law governed Baltimore’s state law nuisance claim as a “cleverly veiled preemption argument.” The court said ordinary preemption was merely a defense and did not permit it to treat the claim as if it had been pleaded under federal law for jurisdictional purposes. The court further concluded that federal common law would not support removal even under the complete preemption doctrine because the defendants had not shown that any federal common law claim for public nuisance was available and case law suggested that the Clean Air Act displaced any such claim. Second, the court found that the case did not fall within the “slim category” of cases in which federal question jurisdiction exists for state law claims that raise substantial and disputed federal issues. Although the court acknowledged that there were “federal interests in addressing climate change,” the court said the defendants had not established that “a federal issue” such as foreign policy or a federal regulatory scheme was a necessary element of Baltimore’s claims. Third, the court rejected the argument that the foreign affairs doctrine or the Clean Air Act completely preempted Baltimore’s claims. Fourth, the court found no basis for federal jurisdiction based on defendants’ activities on federal enclaves. Regarding the alternative bases for removal jurisdiction, the court found that the defendants did not demonstrate that jurisdiction existed under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, or that the claims were removable under the federal officer removal statute, the bankruptcy removal statute, or admiralty jurisdiction. Pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the remand order is temporarily stayed. The defendants are seeking to stay the order pending their appeal to the Fourth Circuit. 04/22/2019 Consent Decree Download Court entered consent order accepting joint stipulation to temporarily stay execution of any remand order. 04/19/2019 Stipulation Download Parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed consent order to temporarily stay execution of any remand order the court may issue. 04/12/2019 Reply Download Reply filed by defendants to plaintiff's opposition to conditional motion to stay execution of any remand order. 04/05/2019 Opposition Download Plaintiff filed opposition to defendants' conditional motion to stay execution of any remand order. 04/03/2019 Motion Download Conditional motion filed by defendants to stay execution of remand order should the court grant the pending motion to remand. 02/22/2019 Opposition Download Opposition to defendants' request for hearing filed by plaintiff. 02/20/2019 Request Download Request for hearing filed by defendants. 12/27/2018 Memorandum of Law Download Notice errata to Mayor & City Council of Baltimore's motion to remand to state court filed, along with corrected memorandum of law. 10/25/2018 Reply Download Reply filed in support of motion to remand. 10/11/2018 Opposition Download Opposition filed to motion to remand. Fossil Fuel Companies Opposed Remand of Baltimore’s Climate Change Lawsuit. On October 11, 2018, fossil fuel companies filed papers in Maryland federal court opposing remand of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore’s (Baltimore’s) lawsuit seeking to hold the companies liable for the impacts of climate change. The companies argued that the claims necessarily arose under federal common law, and that even if only state-law claims were asserted, the claims necessarily raised disputed and substantial federal issues. In addition, the companies argued that the Clean Air Act and other federal statutes completely preempted the claims and that federal jurisdiction was also available pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the federal officer removal statue, federal enclave doctrine, the bankruptcy removal statute, and admiralty jurisdiction. 09/11/2018 Motion Download Motion to remand filed. Baltimore Moved to Remand Its Climate Lawsuit Against Fossil Fuel Companies to State Court. On September 11, 2018, Baltimore moved to remand its climate change lawsuit against fossil fuel companies to Maryland state court. First, Baltimore contended that the defendants’ assertions that federal common law governed the City’s tort claims raised an ordinary preemption defense, which did not confer subject matter jurisdiction. Moreover, Baltimore argued, its claims were not required to be pleaded under federal common law and, in any event, fell outside the scope of federal common law. Baltimore further argued that the defendants’ other grounds for removal did not supply a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. In particular, Baltimore asserted that the complaint did not necessarily raise substantial, disputed federal questions; that the Clean Air Act did not preempt the City’s claims; that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act did not supply jurisdiction for the claims; that there was no federal enclave jurisdiction; that the federal officer removal statute did not apply because the defendants did not act under federal officers; that the bankruptcy removal provisions did not apply; and that admiralty jurisdiction did not provide a basis for removal. 07/31/2018 Notice Download Notice of removal filed. Case Removed to Federal Court. Baltimore asserted causes of action for public nuisance, private nuisance, strict liability failure to warn, strict liability design defect, negligent design defect, negligent failure to warn, and trespass, as well as a cause of action under Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act. The Chevron defendants removed the action to federal court on July 31, 2018, asserting that Baltimore’s lawsuit “calls into question longstanding decisions by the Federal Government regarding, among other things, national security, national energy policy, environmental protection, development of outer continental shelf lands, the maintenance of a national petroleum reserve, mineral extraction on federal lands (which has produced billions of dollars for the Federal Government), and the negotiation of international agreements bearing on the development and use of fossil fuels.” Chevron said the causes of action should be governed by federal common law. The defendants said the case should “be heard in this federal forum to protect the national interest by its prompt dismissal.” -
Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/28/2021 Order Proceedings stayed. After the Supreme Court's decision holding that the Fourth Circuit should have reviewed grounds for removal beyond the federal officer removal statute, the Maryland state court hearing Baltimore’s case stayed the proceedings pending the Fourth Circuit’ review of the defendants’ other grounds for appeal. 08/06/2020 Order Further proceedings deferred pending U.S. Supreme Court decisions on petition for writ of certiorari and in pending personal jurisdiction cases. State Court Put Baltimore Climate Damages Case on Hold Pending U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Certiorari Petition as Well as Personal Jurisdiction Issues in Unrelated Auto Manufacturer Cases. The Maryland trial court hearing Baltimore’s climate case against fossil fuel companies deferred further proceedings pending both the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the companies’ petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Fourth Circuit’s affirmance of the order remanding the case to state court and also the Supreme Court’s decision in its review of decisions by the Montana and Minnesota high courts in cases concerning specific personal jurisdiction over auto manufacturers in wrongful death and products liability cases. 08/05/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation in response to the plaintiff's letter of July 29, 2020 regarding decision in United States v. California. 07/29/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by the plaintiff regarding the Eastern District of California's decision in United States v. California. 07/13/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by the plaintiff in response to the defendants' letter of July 8, 2020. 07/08/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants in response to the court's notice of July 1, 2020. 07/07/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by Chevron Corporation in response to the plaintiff's letter concerning the Ninth Circuit's decision in City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c. 07/02/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiff in response to the court's notice of July 1, 2020. 07/01/2020 Notice Download Notice issued by court indicating withdrawal of dates proposed for hearing on motion to dismiss. 06/11/2020 Letter Download Letter submitted by plaintiff regarding Ninth Circuit's decision in City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c. 05/21/2020 Reply Download Reply memorandum filed in support of defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 04/23/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amicus curiae Attorney General of Maryland in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. 04/15/2020 Opposition Opposition to motions to dismiss filed. Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction were filed in February, and the United States filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support of the motion to dismiss. On April 15, Baltimore filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss, reportedly responding to a First Amendment defense by arguing that “[n]o law authorizes misleading and deceptive marketing of products that the manufacturer or marketer knows to be dangerous; and no law authorizes a multi-decade campaign of deceit to undermine public confidence in climate-related science to prolong or increase the use of the companies’ products at the expense of other, safer alternatives.” 04/07/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by former U.S. government officials as amici curiae in support of plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss. 03/20/2020 Amicus Motion Download Motion by United States to file a brief as amicus curiae in support of the defendants' motion to dismiss. 03/15/2020 Opposition Download Opposition filed by the plaintiff to defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. 02/07/2020 Memorandum Download Supplemental memorandum filed in support of CNX/Consol motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 02/07/2020 Motion to Dismiss Download Joint motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by defendants. 02/07/2020 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted filed by defendants. 02/07/2020 Request Download Request for judicial notice filed by defendants' in support of their joint motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 02/07/2020 Stipulation Download Parties filed joint stipulation for limited amendment of joint stipulation regarding preliminary motions. 07/20/2018 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Baltimore Filed Climate Change Lawsuit Against 26 Fossil Fuel Companies. On July 20, 2018, the Mayor and City of Baltimore (Baltimore) filed an action in Maryland state court seeking to hold 26 fossil fuel companies liable for injuries resulting from climate change. Like other municipalities, Baltimore alleged that the defendants’ conduct—the production, promotion, and marketing of fossil fuel products; the simultaneous concealment of the products’ known hazards; and their “championing of anti-science campaigns”—directly and proximately cause adverse climate change impacts. The alleged injuries included more frequent and more severe storms and flooding in the city and substantial increases in average sea level, as well as heatwaves, disruptions of the hydrologic cycle (including extreme precipitation and drought), and associated public health impacts. Baltimore asserted that it was particularly vulnerable to sea level rise and flooding due to 60 miles of waterfront land and that climate change impacts already adversely affected the City’s infrastructure. Baltimore asserted causes of action for public nuisance, private nuisance, strict liability failure to warn, strict liability design defect, negligent design defect, negligent failure to warn, and trespass, as well as a cause of action under Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act.