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 / Supreme Court Will Hear Appeal in Baltimore Climate Case on Federal Vs. State Jurisdiction
Supreme Court Will Hear Appeal in Baltimore Climate Case on Federal Vs. State Jurisdiction

Supreme Court Will Hear Appeal in Baltimore Climate Case on Federal Vs. State Jurisdiction

October 2, 2020 Filed Under: Baltimore Lawsuit, Liability Litigation

print
By Karen Savage

The Supreme Court on Friday granted a petition from several fossil fuel companies and agreed  to review a procedural question on whether Baltimore’s climate liability suit filed against them should be heard in federal or state court.

The city’s suit focuses on the fossil fuel companies’ contribution to climate change, however the high court is unlikely to address the suit’s merits. The issue being appealed simply relates to whether the complaints involved federal or state claims and what court should hear them.

“The Court has decided to review a narrow technical issue that has no bearing on the substance of Baltimore’s suit to hold these defendants accountable for the climate change harms and costs they are imposing on our taxpayers,” Baltimore Acting Solicitor Dana P. Moore said in a statement. 

The city first filed suit in Maryland state court in 2018, alleging that Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and more than a dozen other companies knew for decades that their products drive climate change, but deliberately failed to inform the public about those risks. The city is charging the companies with eight violations, including public nuisance, private nuisance, failure to warn and violations of Maryland’s consumer protection laws. 

As they have in dozens of climate change-related lawsuits filed against them in recent years, the companies wanted the case to be heard in federal court, where they thought they’d have a better chance of shaking it. Both the U.S. District Court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided in the city’s favor, which prompted the companies to appeal the issue to the Supreme Court. 

The court’s acceptance of the case will also slow the progression of several similar suits, which have been paused while the companies ask the high court to weigh in. 

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

The U.S. District Court rejected that contention, along with the companies’ other arguments.  The Fourth Circuit affirmed that decision, but reviewed only the issue of federal officer removal. It declined to consider the energy companies’ other arguments, which it said it is not authorized to review.

Both parties agree that those arguments are not reviewable if presented alone, but the companies contend that because they were presented along with the federal officer removal argument—which is eligible for appellate review—they too should have been reviewed.  

In their petition to the Supreme Court, the companies contend that the appellate courts are divided on the issue. While that appears to be the case in unrelated cases, the Ninth and Tenth Circuit Courts, which have reviewed similar cases filed by municipalities in California and Colorado, respectively have all ruled similarly to the Fourth Circuit.

“Four U.S. district judges and three federal appellate panels are aligned on the legal standard for the scope of review of a district court’s remand order. We look forward to a Supreme Court ruling validating that alignment,” Moore said, adding that Baltimore filed its case more than two years ago. 

“In public, defendants criticize our case as without merit. But in court, they do everything they can to delay proceedings and avoid a public trial on the facts. Their days of having it both ways are ending. Accountability is coming.”

If the high court ultimately decides in the companies’ favor, they still must convince the appellate court that their other reasons are persuasive in order for the case to be heard in federal court. Thus far, no federal court has been swayed by those arguments.

The court has not yet set a hearing date, but the matter is expected to be heard later this judicial session, which runs through June 2021. 

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, 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. Maui: Oil Companies Should Pay for Climate Damages They Caused - The Climate Docket says:
    October 12, 2020 at 11:11 pm

    […] they believe they have a better chance of getting them dismissed. The U.S. Supreme Court last week agreed to weigh in on a jurisdictional-related technicality in a suit filed by […]

  2. Why the Supreme Court Waded Into the Climate Liability Battle and What It Could Mean - The Climate Docket says:
    October 20, 2020 at 6:12 am

    […] high court threw this particular wrench into the works earlier this month when it granted a petition from ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and nearly two dozen other fossil fuel companies. It agreed to […]

  3. Federal Judge Boosts R.I. Climate Lawsuit, Sends It To State Court - The Climate Docket says:
    October 29, 2020 at 7:47 pm

    […] Supreme Court has agreed to review that issue in Baltimore’s case, but the First Circuit, like the other appellate courts, […]

  4. Exxon Tries Same Arguments to Get Minn. Climate Suit to Federal Court - The Climate Docket says:
    November 12, 2020 at 2:04 pm

    […] Supreme Court has agreed to review a technicality in Baltimore’s case, however that issue involves which arguments […]

  5. DC: Oil Companies Are Twisting Climate Lawsuit to Keep It in Federal Court - The Climate Docket says:
    November 18, 2020 at 9:01 pm

    […] granted a petition by several defendant companies in a suit filed against them by Baltimore and agreed to weigh in on a procedural question related to the Fourth Circuit’s review of the lower […]

  6. Delaware Takes Its Turn Arguing Its Climate Suit Belongs in State Court - The Climate Docket says:
    November 23, 2020 at 12:11 pm

    […] granted a petition by several defendant companies in a suit filed against them by Baltimore and agreed to weigh in on a procedural question related to the Fourth Circuit’s review of jurisdictional […]

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?
  • Hawaii Joins Trend: Recognizes Constitutional Right to Safe Climate and Environment
  • Carbon Majors Can Be Held Liable for Human Rights Violations, Philippines Commission Rules
  • R.I. Wins Battle to Keep Climate Suit Vs. Big Oil in State Court
  • Study Estimates Seawalls to Protect U.S. Coast Will Cost $400 Billion

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.