BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
Case Overview
The Supreme Court ruled on whether the Fourth Circuit had jurisdiction over a climate change lawsuit that Baltimore, Maryland brought against fossil fuel companies in state court under state law, addressing whether federal removal jurisdiction, the statutory and constitutional authority for a defendant to transfer a case from state to federal court, is available under the federal officer removal statute or several other grounds, with significant implications for dozens of similar local-government climate suits.
Decision
BrynoDC Coverage 5 videos
Opinion of the Court
The Facts
The City of Baltimore filed suit in Maryland state court against BP and other oil companies, asserting state-law claims of fraud, nuisance, and failure to warn related to climate change. The oil companies removed the case to federal court on several grounds. The district court held removal was improper and remanded to state court. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit held it could only review one of the removal grounds, the federal officer removal statute, and affirmed the remand. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the scope of appellate jurisdiction over remand orders.
The Application
Under § 1447(d), remand orders are generally unreviewable on appeal, but an exception allows review when federal officer or civil rights removal grounds are raised. BP asserted multiple removal theories, yet the Fourth Circuit initially concluded it could review only the federal officer removal ground under the statute's exception. The Court applied the statutory exception's text to hold that once appellate jurisdiction exists through that exception, a court of appeals may review all removal grounds the defendant advanced, not merely the one triggering jurisdiction. This holding restored BP's ability to have all its removal arguments reviewed on appeal, potentially overturning the remand and keeping the climate liability case in federal court rather than returning it to state court.
The Conclusion
Decided May 17, 2021. The Court held 7-1 that when a court of appeals has jurisdiction to review a remand order under § 1447(d)'s exception, it may consider all grounds for removal that the defendant asserted -- not only the specific ground triggering appellate jurisdiction. The ruling permitted the Fourth Circuit to review all of BP's removal theories on remand, reopening the federal forum question and potentially keeping the climate liability suits in federal court.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Supreme Court ruled on whether the Fourth Circuit had jurisdiction over a climate change lawsuit that Baltimore, Maryland brought against fossil fuel companies in state court under state law, addressing whether federal removal jurisdiction. The statutory and constitutional authority for a defendant to transfer a case from state to federal court. Is available under the federal officer removal statute or several other grounds, with significant implications for dozens of similar local-government climate suits.
Facts
The City of Baltimore filed suit in Maryland state court against BP and other oil companies, asserting state-law claims of fraud, nuisance, and failure to warn related to climate change. The oil companies removed the case to federal court on several grounds. The district court held removal was improper and remanded to state court. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit held it could only review one of the removal grounds, the federal officer removal statute, and affirmed the remand. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the scope of appellate jurisdiction over remand orders.
Issue
Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), which limits appellate review of remand orders, permits a court of appeals to consider only one of the defendant's proffered grounds for removal, the federal officer removal statute, or whether a defendant who removes on multiple grounds may have all grounds reviewed on appeal even if the case is remanded.
Rule
28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) provides that an order remanding a case to state court 'is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise,' with an exception for cases removed under the civil rights removal statute and the federal officer statute. BP P.L.C. V. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore asked whether that exception, when it applies, permits review of all removal grounds raised by the defendant, or only the specific federal-officer or civil-rights ground.
Analysis
Under § 1447(d), remand orders are generally unreviewable on appeal, but an exception allows review when federal officer or civil rights removal grounds are raised. BP asserted multiple removal theories, yet the Fourth Circuit initially concluded it could review only the federal officer removal ground under the statute's exception. The Court applied the statutory exception's text to hold that once appellate jurisdiction exists through that exception, a court of appeals may review all removal grounds the defendant advanced, not merely the one triggering jurisdiction. This holding restored BP's ability to have all its removal arguments reviewed on appeal, potentially overturning the remand and keeping the climate liability case in federal court rather than returning it to state court.
Conclusion
**Decided May 17, 2021. The Court held 7-1 that when a court of appeals has jurisdiction to review a remand order under § 1447(d)'s exception, it may consider all grounds for removal that the defendant asserted. Not only the specific ground triggering appellate jurisdiction.** The ruling permitted the Fourth Circuit to review all of BP's removal theories on remand, reopening the federal forum question and potentially keeping the climate liability suits in federal court.
Notes
OT2020. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support