Term: 2020
Docket: 19-1189
Bp P.l.c. v. Mayor And City Council Of Baltimore
- Pro
19-1189 BP P.L.C. V. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE DECISION BELOW: 952 F.3d 452 JUSTICE ALITO TOOK NO PART CERT. GRANTED 10/2/2020 QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 1447(d) of Title 28 of the United States Code generally precludes appellate review of an order remanding a removed case to state court. But Section 1447(d) expressly provides that an "order remanding a case * * * removed pursuant to" the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C.1443, "shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise." Some courts of appeals have interpreted Section 1447(d) to permit appellate review of any issue encompassed in a district court's remand order where the removing defendant premised removal in part on the federal-officer or civil-rights removal statutes; other courts of appeals, including the Fourth Circuit in this case, have held that- appellate review is limited to the federal-officer or civil rights ground for removal. The question presented is as follows: Whether 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) 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. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 19-1644
The U.S. Supreme Court case BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (2020) revolved around a climate change lawsuit filed by the city of Baltimore against several major oil companies, including BP, for their contribution to global warming through greenhouse gas emissions. The primary issue in this case was not about the validity of these claims but rather where they should be heard - in state or federal court. Oil companies preferred federal courts due to perceived favorable outcomes while Baltimore wanted the case tried at a local level believing it would have better chances there as issues related to public nuisance laws were traditionally under state jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that appellate courts must consider all grounds for removal from state court when reviewing such cases, not just those based on federal-officer jurisdiction or civil rights statutes as previously held by lower courts.
In the case of BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Justice Samuel Alito was the sole dissenter in an otherwise unanimous decision by the Supreme Court. In his dissenting opinion, he argued that federal courts should have jurisdiction over climate change lawsuits against oil companies like BP because they involve national issues rather than local ones as claimed by Baltimore city officials who filed this lawsuit to hold these companies accountable for their contribution to global warming and sea-level rise which are affecting their city significantly. He also expressed concern about a potential flood of similar cases being heard in state courts across the country if such lawsuits were not under federal jurisdiction, leading to inconsistent rulings on matters with nationwide implications.
