89 F.4th 144
D.C. Cir.2023Background
- The District of Columbia sued Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, and subsidiaries in D.C. Superior Court, alleging deceptive advertising and failure to warn about fossil fuel products' impact on climate change.
- The District's claims were based solely on the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA), seeking an injunction, damages, and civil penalties for deceptive trade practices.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing federal jurisdiction was proper under multiple grounds (federal common law, federal question, federal officer, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act).
- The federal district court remanded the case, rejecting all grounds for federal jurisdiction; companies appealed under the federal officer removal statute, allowing appellate review of all removal grounds.
- The central dispute: whether the District's state-law claims actually arise under federal law, permitting removal to federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal Common Law Preemption | Suit arises only under D.C. law (CPPA); no federal common law invoked | Claims are really federal common law nuisance claims about interstate pollution | No, Clean Air Act displaces federal common law; no federal jurisdiction |
| Grable Doctrine (Embedded Federal Issue) | No federal question is necessarily raised; claims are local consumer protection | Claims raise substantial federal questions (energy policy, climate) | No, federal issue not necessary to plaintiff's case; jurisdiction absent |
| Federal Officer Removal | No connection between claims and acts under color of federal office | Companies acted under federal authority in fossil-related operations | No, actions under federal supervision not sufficiently related to claims |
| OCSLA Jurisdiction | Claims not sufficiently connected with Outer Continental Shelf operations | Suit arises out of/relates to shelf-based extraction activities | No, connection to shelf operations too tenuous for removal |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257 (well-pleaded complaint rule for federal question jurisdiction)
- Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (anticipation of a federal defense insufficient for removal)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (federal defenses do not confer federal jurisdiction)
- Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91 (federal common law for interstate pollution—now displaced by statute)
- City of Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304 (statutory displacement of federal common law)
- Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing, 545 U.S. 308 (narrow exception for embedded federal questions)
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (limits for federal question jurisdiction under Grable)
- American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (Clean Air Act displaces federal common law of air pollution)
- International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481 (preemption of state common law by federal statute on pollution)
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (complete preemption doctrine)