Case No. 19-1189 | 4th Cir.
January 19, 2021
Preview by Austin Martin, Senior Online Editor
This case stems from an action by the government of Baltimore against 21 domestic and foreign fossil fuel producers for alleged violations of Maryland law due to the companies’ role in furthering climate change and its resulting harms. Two defendants removed the case to federal court on eight grounds, one of which asserted that removal was warranted under the federal-officer removal statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (2018). Baltimore moved to remand the case back to state court, and the district court approved Baltimore’s motion. The defendants appealed the motion and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) deprived it of appellate jurisdiction to consider any of the defendants’ grounds for removal except for the federal-officer ground for removal, which is explicitly carved out for review in § 1447(d). The defendants, now petitioners, argue that the Fourth Circuit was wrong to hold that § 1447(d) did not allow appellate review of the entire order encompassing all grounds for removal. Brief for the Petitioners at 3, BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, No. 19-1189 (U.S. filed Nov. 16, 2020).
The Court must decide whether § 1447(d) allows appellate review of any issue in a district court order remanding a case that was removed pursuant to § 1442 (federal-officer removal) or § 1443 (civil-rights removal), or only those issues related to § 1442 and § 1443. The petitioners argue the former, urging that the plain text of § 1447(d) indicates that “a court of appeals may review the entire remand ‘order’ . . . where the defendant premised removal in part on the federal-officer or civil-rights removal statutes.” Id. at 11–12. The petitioners insist that the Court’s precedents compel this result. They point to cases under three other statutes in which the Court interpreted them to allow appellate review of an entire district court order, including issues distinct from the particular ground allowing appeal. See id. at 21–23 (discussing cases under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a)(1), 1292(b), and 1253). Finally, the petitioners argue that the purposes of § 1447(d) support their asserted “plain-text” interpretation. See id. at 26–31. The United States submitted an amicus brief in favor of the petitioners that largely echoes these arguments. See Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, No. 19-1189 (U.S. filed Nov. 23, 2020).
Baltimore contends that the petitioners’ federal-officer ground for removal was meritless, and that a defendant should not be able to take advantage of a meritless claim to obtain review of every ground for removal. See Brief for Respondent Mayor & City Council of Baltimore at 1, 8, BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, No. 19-1189 (U.S. filed Dec. 16, 2020). Baltimore contends that the tools of statutory interpretation suggest that § 1447(d) “authorizes review of a remand order only insofar as it addresses federal-officer and civil-rights removal.” Id. at 1, 14–17. Baltimore contends that the petitioners’ interpretation harms the principles of federalism by “questioning the competence of state courts to adjudicate cases remanded by federal district courts.” Id. at 19. Additionally, Baltimore argues this case was not removed “pursuant to” federal-officer or civil-rights removal grounds because these grounds lacked merit and were not satisfied, meaning the district court’s order is not reviewable under § 1447(d). See id. at 23; § 1447(d). Furthermore, Baltimore argues that Congress ratified the circuit courts’ “uniform construction” of § 1447(d) when it amended the statute to include federal-officer removal as an express ground for appellate review. See id. at 31.
Although this case encompasses a narrow issue within the larger dispute over alleged climate change harms, the Supreme Court’s decision will be a consequential one. Nineteen related cases on climate change harms are pending in federal courts around the country, and the Court’s decision will affect ongoing removal disputes in those cases. See Brief for Petitioners at 6–7, n.1. Several amici have also weighed in to debate the limits of federalism and whether state or federal courts are the most competent fora for climate change tort claims. The Court’s decision may impact the degree of independence that state courts have in adjudicating these claims.