City of Chicago v. BP P.L.C., 1:24-cv-02496

The City of Chicago filed suit in state court against major oil companies and their trade organization, alleging state law violations related to misrepresentations and concealment about fossil fuel products’ dangers to climate change.
The City’s claims included products liability, nuisance, conspiracy, consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of municipal codes.
Defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing federal subject matter jurisdiction under the federal officer removal statute.
Chicago moved to remand, arguing the federal court lacked jurisdiction because the claims did not arise from federally directed activities or present a federal question.
The City’s complaint expressly disclaimed any claims arising from defendants’ provision of specialized fuels to the federal government for national defense or military purposes.
The court assumed all facts in the operative complaint true for purposes of the remand motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Federal officer removal: did defendants act under officers?	Chicago disclaims injuries from federal contracts; activities not federal-directed with respect to claims.	Oil companies performed tasks (fuel supply/production) for the government; thus, they're acting under federal authority.	Disclaimed activities not at issue here; defendants did not act under federal officers as to the alleged misrepresentations.
Nexus between claims and federal authority	Claims are about deceptive conduct, not activities under federal contracts or direction.	Fossil fuel production and sales for government are inherently related to alleged injuries.	Insufficient connection between alleged deceptive conduct and acts under federal authority.
Colorable federal defense	No government contractor or other federal defense applies; no government direction in misrepresentation.	Assert government contractor and other constitutional defenses.	No colorable federal defense; government contractor defense unavailable since government did not direct deception.
Entitlement to fees for wrongful removal	Removal was objectively baseless given unanimous rejection in other circuits.	Removal was reasonable under Seventh Circuit precedent.	No fee award; removal arguments were not objectively unreasonable in light of circuit precedent.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (removal jurisdiction—federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. 435 (removal is proper only for claims that could have been brought in federal court)
Watson v. Phillip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142 ("acting under" federal officers for removal requires a close relationship, not mere compliance)
Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (establishes the government contractor defense)
Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402 (removal is proper where a federal defense is colorable and the defendant acted under color of federal office)
Betzner v. Boeing Co., 910 F.3d 1010 (details standards for federal officer removal)
Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Ctrs., Inc., 577 F.3d 752 (burden on defendant for establishing federal jurisdiction)
Ruppel v. CBS Corp., 701 F.3d 1176 (defines requirement for "acting under" federal officers in removal)
Kelly v. Martin & Bayley, Inc., 503 F.3d 584 (compliance with regulations alone insufficient for federal officer removal)
Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (fees may only be awarded for objectively unreasonable removal)