Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C.
31 F.4th 178
| 4th Cir. | 2022Background
- In July 2018 Baltimore sued 26 multinational oil & gas companies in Maryland state court, alleging their extraction, production, marketing, and misinformation about fossil fuels caused climate-change harms to the city and seeking damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief and abatement under Maryland law (nuisance, products-liability, trespass, MCPA).
- Defendants removed to federal court asserting eight independent bases for federal jurisdiction: federal common law, Grable substantial federal issue/foreign-affairs, Clean Air Act complete preemption, federal-enclave jurisdiction, OCSLA, bankruptcy removal, admiralty, and federal-officer removal.
- The district court remanded, rejecting all eight grounds; the Fourth Circuit originally affirmed only as to federal-officer removal but the Supreme Court vacated and remanded, instructing the Fourth Circuit to address all removal theories.
- On remand the Fourth Circuit reviewed each asserted basis de novo, applying the well-pleaded-complaint rule and the strict standards for complete preemption, federal-common-law creation, Grable jurisdiction, and the other specialized jurisdictional doctrines.
- The court rejected each ground: it refused to create federal common law (displaced or not properly shown), found Grable inapplicable (no federal issue "necessarily raised"), held the CAA does not completely preempt Baltimore’s state-law claims, and likewise rejected federal-enclave, OCSLA, bankruptcy, admiralty, and federal-officer removal theories as inadequate or too attenuated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal common law governs and thus supports removal | Baltimore pleaded only Maryland law claims; no federal common-law claim | Defendants: claims are inherently federal/interstate/international pollution matters needing federal common law | Denied — federal common law not invoked on the face; creation unwarranted and in any event displaced by federal statutes (CAA/CWA); defendants failed to show the required "significant conflict" with federal interests |
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists under Grable/foreign-affairs | Baltimore: state-law torts do not “necessarily raise” federal issues | Defendants: resolution will implicate national security, foreign affairs, energy and environmental regulation | Denied — Grable first prong fails (no federal issue is a necessary element); foreign-affairs preemption not shown |
| Whether the Clean Air Act (CAA) completely preempts state-law claims | Baltimore: CAA does not displace or make exclusive state common-law claims for harms of this kind | Defendants: CAA displaces/occupies field such that removal is proper | Denied — CAA’s text and savings clauses show Congress did not clearly intend complete preemption of these state-law claims |
| Whether federal-enclave/admiralty jurisdiction permits removal | Baltimore: harms are to city land/infrastructure (non-federal); no torts on navigable waters or caused by vessels | Defendants: substantial operations on federal lands and maritime extraction platforms, so federal enclave or admiralty jurisdiction applies | Denied — alleged injuries occurred on non-federal land; location and causation tests for enclaves and admiralty not met (no vessel-caused land torts) |
| Whether OCSLA confers jurisdiction | Baltimore: claims are not sufficiently caused by Outer Continental Shelf operations | Defendants: substantial part of extraction occurred on OCS; claims "arise out of or in connection with" OCS activity | Denied — OCSLA requires a but-for causal connection; plaintiffs’ injuries would exist apart from OCS activities (relationship too remote/attenuated) |
| Whether removal under bankruptcy or federal-officer statutes is proper | Baltimore: suit is a governmental police/regulatory action and not "related to" the cited bankruptcies; no adequate "acting under" relationship to federal officers | Defendants: certain predecessors/subsidiaries had bankruptcy plans or contracts with federal agencies (NEXCOM leases, OCS leases, Elk Hills unit agreement) or acted under federal direction | Denied — no close nexus to confirmed bankruptcies; police/regulatory exception bars bankruptcy removal; federal-officer removal fails (no adequate acting-under showing or sufficient nexus to Baltimore’s claims) |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Milwaukee v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 91 (1972) (recognized federal common law for interstate pollution before statutory displacement)
- American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011) (held Clean Air Act displaces federal common-law nuisance claims about CO2 emissions)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005) (state claim may give rise to federal-question jurisdiction only when it necessarily raises a substantial federal issue)
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013) (articulated four-part Grable test for substantial federal question jurisdiction)
- Watson v. Philip Morris Co., 551 U.S. 142 (2007) (interpreting "acting under" for federal-officer removal; compliance with regulation alone is insufficient)
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) (federal courts may not create a general federal common law that displaces state law)
- Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (2004) (well-pleaded complaint rule and limits on removal based on anticipated federal defenses)
- BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532 (2021) (Supreme Court remand instructing the Fourth Circuit to review the entire remand order)