979 F.3d 50
1st Cir.2020Background
- Rhode Island sued numerous oil and gas companies in state court alleging state-law claims (public nuisance, products liability, trespass, impairment of public trust resources, and violations of the state Environmental Rights Act) based on climate-change harms and alleged industry deception.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court asserting multiple bases for federal jurisdiction: federal-question jurisdiction, federal-officer removal (28 U.S.C. §1442), OCSLA, federal enclave, admiralty, and others.
- Rhode Island moved to remand; the federal district court granted remand, finding no federal jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
- Defendants appealed; the central appellate question was the scope of review under 28 U.S.C. §1447(d) and whether federal-officer removal (§1442) supported keeping the case in federal court.
- The First Circuit held that §1447(d) permits appellate review only of remand orders to the extent they reject removal under §1442 (federal-officer) or §1443 (civil-rights); it then concluded federal-officer removal did not apply because the contracts and federal relationships cited had no sufficient nexus to Rhode Island’s allegations (marketing/distribution and alleged deception).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of appellate review under 28 U.S.C. §1447(d) | §1447(d) limits appellate review to the district court's rejection of federal-officer or civil-rights removal only | §1447(d)'s reference to an "order" permits review of the entire remand order | Court: Review is limited to parts of a remand order that deny removal under §1442 or §1443 (narrow construction) |
| Whether defendants may remove under federal-officer statute (§1442) | Rhode Island: defendants were not "acting under" federal officers for the conduct alleged; remand proper | Defendants: certain contracts (Elk Hills, OCSLA leases, NEXCOM/CITGO) show they acted under federal authority, so §1442 removal is proper | Court: §1442 not satisfied—defendants failed to show they acted under federal officers for the conduct alleged; no federal-officer jurisdiction |
| Nexus between federal contracts and the state-law claims | Rhode Island: contracts concern extraction or limited federal supply, not the marketing, sale, or misinformation at issue in Rhode Island’s complaint | Defendants: contracts demonstrate federal supervision/relationship sufficient to link their overall business to federal functions | Held: Contracts addressed extraction or limited supply and did not control the marketing/distribution/misleading conduct alleged; no adequate nexus |
| Disposition / remedy | Remand to state court is proper | Defendants sought reversal and federal adjudication | Court affirmed remand; awarded costs to Rhode Island |
Key Cases Cited
- Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199 (1996) (discussed scope of appellate review of a district court "order")
- Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (2007) (limits on appellate review of remand orders; review only if characterization of jurisdiction is colorable)
- Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142 (2007) (definition of "acting under" a federal officer requires subjection, guidance, or control)
- Jefferson Cty., Ala. v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423 (1999) (elements for federal-officer removal: acting under, colorable federal defense, nexus)
- Lu Junhong v. Boeing Co., 792 F.3d 805 (7th Cir. 2015) (held entire remand order reviewable under §1447(d); discussed by parties)
- Bd. of County Comm'rs of Boulder Cty. v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., 965 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2020) (adopted narrow view limiting appellate review to §1442/§1443 issues)
- County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., 960 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2020) (considered federal-officer removal in related climate litigation)
- Ochoa Realty Corp. v. Faria, 815 F.2d 812 (1st Cir. 1987) (recognition that §1447(d) generally bars review of remand orders)
- Camacho v. Autoridad de Telefonos de Puerto Rico, 868 F.2d 482 (1st Cir. 1989) (example where federal control made removal proper)
- Ten Taxpayer Citizens Grp. v. Cape Wind Assocs., LLC, 373 F.3d 183 (1st Cir. 2004) (standard to accept well-pleaded allegations from the state complaint when evaluating removal)