The Climate Docket

WHAT WE COVER:

  • Liability Litigation
    • Baltimore Lawsuit
    • California Climate Lawsuits
    • Colorado Lawsuit
    • Mass. v. Exxon
    • New York City Lawsuit
    • Rhode Island Lawsuit
    • Other Suits
  • Access to Courts
    • Liability Waivers
    • State Legislation
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Powered by Genesis

You are here: Home / Liability Litigation / Baltimore Lawsuit / Baltimore Says Supreme Court Should Ignore Fossil Fuel Companies’ Appeal

Baltimore Says Supreme Court Should Ignore Fossil Fuel Companies’ Appeal

July 1, 2020 Filed Under: Baltimore Lawsuit, Latest News, Liability Litigation

print

The U.S. Supreme Court should reject a request by fossil fuel companies to review an appellate court ruling that Baltimore’s climate liability suit against them belongs in state court, according to a brief filed by the city.

Baltimore, which filed its brief Monday with the high court, argued the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals was correct to reject the companies’ argument that the case belongs in federal court under the Federal Officer Removal Statute and was correct to decline to review the oil giants’ other arguments.

Like dozens of climate-related lawsuits filed across the country, the question of jurisdiction—whether the suit will proceed in federal or state court—has been hotly contested. 

Baltimore wants the case against Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and more than a dozen other companies, to be heard in state court, where it was filed in 2018 alleging violations of state law. The fossil fuel companies want the case to be heard in federal court, where previous climate-related cases have been decided largely in the industry’s favor.

The companies have relied heavily on the Federal Officer Removal Statute, which gives federal courts jurisdiction over civil actions directed at the United States or any federal official. They argue that because they sold or extracted fossil fuels under government contract, they operated as federal officers.

In Baltimore’s case, that contention was rejected last year by the U.S. District Court and  affirmed in March by the Fourth Circuit. District courts in Rhode Island, California and Colorado, have also rejected that argument and the decisions have thus far been upheld on appeal. 

The energy giants initially presented several other arguments for having Baltimore’s case heard in federal court. Both parties seem to agree that if presented alone, those arguments would be unreviewable. The fossil fuel companies, however, contend that they are eligible for review when presented along with the federal officer removal argument.

Baltimore flatly rejects that contention.

“Petitioners all but admit that, having failed to persuade any court that their federal-officer removal arguments are meritorious, ‘all they really want is a hook to allow appeal of some different subject,’” Baltimore wrote in its brief.

The fossil fuel companies maintain the issue is ripe for the Supreme Court because it will decide the matter for all the cases being heard in the various circuits.

Both sides have now submitted briefs and the Supreme Court is expected to announce in the coming months whether it will hear the case.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Baltimore Lawsuit, Latest News, Liability Litigation

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Trackbacks

  1. Ninth Circuit Grants Oil Companies' Request to Pause California Climate Suits - The Climate Docket says:
    August 27, 2020 at 11:31 am

    […] the companies say they will ask the Supreme Court to decide. The high court has yet to respond to a request by many of the same companies to review a similar ruling in Baltimore’s climate liability […]

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Latest News

Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing

By Karen Savage The acting solicitor general will be allowed time to argue in support of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and nearly two dozen other companies next week during oral arguments before … [Read More...]

Recent Posts

  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
  • Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing
  • Oil Companies Ask Supreme Court to Decide Jurisdiction of More Climate Cases
  • Climate Suits Grew in 2020, Could Clear Huge Hurdle in 2021

Most Popular

  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
  • French Government Sued for Inadequate Climate Action
  • Vulnerable Nations Call for Ecocide to Be Recognized As an International Crime
  • What Oil Companies Knew About Climate Change and When: A Timeline
  • Baltimore Becomes Latest City to Sue Fossil Fuel Companies for Climate Damages

Categories

  • Access to Courts
  • Baltimore Lawsuit
  • California Climate Lawsuits
  • Charleston, S.C. Lawsuit
  • Colorado Lawsuit
  • Connecticut Lawsuit
  • Delaware Lawsuit
  • Exxon Climate Investigation
  • Featured
  • Hoboken Lawsuit
  • International
  • Latest News
  • Liability Litigation
  • Liability Waivers
  • Mass. v. Exxon
  • Minnesota Lawsuit
  • New York City Lawsuit
  • Other Suits
  • Politics
  • Rhode Island Lawsuit
  • State Legislation
  • Uncategorized
  • Washington DC Lawsuit

Follow us

  • View climatedocket’s profile on Facebook
  • View climatedocket’s profile on Twitter

RSS

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.