BP p.l.c. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

In July 2018, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore sued BP, Chevron, Exxon, Shell, and other energy companies in Maryland state court, alleging that the companies concealed the environmental impacts of the fossil fuels they promoted. The defendants removed the case to federal court, citing multiple grounds including the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442. The district court remanded the case back to state court, holding that none of the removal grounds justified federal jurisdiction. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit held that under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), its review was limited to the federal officer removal ground and that it lacked jurisdiction to review the other grounds. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the scope of appellate review over remand orders.

In a 7-1 decision authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Circuit erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider all of the defendants' grounds for removal under § 1447(d). The Court ruled that the ordinary meaning of § 1447(d)'s text permits appellate review of the district court's entire remand order when a defendant relies on § 1442 or § 1443 as a ground for removal. The judgment of the Fourth Circuit was vacated, and the case was remanded for the Fourth Circuit to consider all of the defendants' stated grounds for removal. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, and Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the case.

Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) permits a court of appeals to review any issue in a district court order remanding a case to state court when the 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. Specifically, whether the appellate court may review the entire remand order or only the portion addressing the § 1442 or § 1443 ground.

The ruling was a procedural victory for the energy companies, giving them another opportunity to argue that climate liability lawsuits belong in federal court rather than state court. The decision affects over twenty similar climate change lawsuits filed by states, cities, and counties across the United States against fossil fuel companies. While the Court did not decide the substantive merits of Baltimore's claims, the ruling may delay resolution of the underlying climate liability issues by prolonging jurisdictional battles. The case represents part of a broader litigation strategy by municipalities to force action on climate change through the courts rather than through legislative channels.