FEDERAL OFFICER

BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

Issues

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), may a court of appeals review any issue in an order to remand a case as long as one of the grounds for remand is federal-officer or civil-rights jurisdiction?

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) allows courts of appeals to review an entire order remanding a removed case back to state court. Normally, Section 1447(d) forbids courts of appeals from reviewing remand orders, except when a federal officer seeks removal or the case involves civil rights. Based on a plain reading of the text and the purpose of the exceptions, BP argues that if a defendant asserts either jurisdictional ground, Section 1447(d) permits a court to review the entire order. Baltimore contends that this reading contravenes the purpose and historical understanding of the proper scope of review. This case has implications for state and federal jurisdiction, climate change, and congressional delegation of power.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) permits a court of appeals to review any issue encompassed in a district court’s order remanding a removed case to state court when the removing 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.

In July 2018, the Mayor and City of Baltimore (collectively, “Baltimore”) filed suit in Maryland state court against twenty-six oil and gas companies, alleging that these companies knowingly contributed to climate change by “producing, promoting, and (misleadingly) marketing fossil fuel products long after learning the dangers associated with them.” Mayor & City Council of Balt. v.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana

Issues

Where a federal contractor attempts to remove a case to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute, what is the correct standard for determining whether removal is proper where the activity giving rise to the lawsuit is not expressly the subject of the government contract on which removal is based?

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide how the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which allows federal officers and persons “acting under an officer” to remove lawsuits from state to federal courts, applies to federal contractors after a 2011 amendment. In this case, it specifically asks whether three gas and oil’s companies’ production of crude oil sufficiently relates to their contracts to furnish refined aviation gasoline for the federal government during World War II. Chevron, one of the companies involved in this suit, argues that the federal-officer removal statute applies broadly to defendants requesting removal and that wartime oil refining was inherently related to its production of crude oil at the time. Plaquemines Parish, one of multiple jurisdictions that sued the companies for environmental damage, counters that, because Chevron’s refining contracts with the federal government did not address crude production, that production does not sufficiently “relate to” the refining, as required by the 2011 amendment. This case raises significant issues regarding the scope of federal contractors’ ability to litigate in federal forums, the willingness of companies to contract with the federal government, and the effectiveness of congressional amendments over established federal caselaw.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute, which provides federal jurisdiction over civil actions against “any person acting under [an] officer” of the United States “for or relating to any act under color of such office”; and (2) whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract.

Under the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), a defendant may remove a state-court suit to federal court if, among other things, the defendant was “acting under” a federal officer and if the suit is “for or relating to any act under color of such office.” Plaquemines Parish v.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to FEDERAL OFFICER