35 F.4th 44
1st Cir.2022Background
- Rhode Island sued major oil companies in state court alleging state-law claims (public nuisance, strict liability, negligence, failure to warn, impairment of public-trust resources, and violations of the state Environmental Rights Act) for harms to its property and natural resources from climate change.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court asserting multiple grounds: federal-officer removal, federal-question jurisdiction (federal common law / Grable), complete preemption by the Clean Air Act, OCSLA jurisdiction, admiralty jurisdiction, and bankruptcy-related removal.
- The district court remanded; a prior First Circuit opinion (affirming remand as to the federal-officer ground) was GVR'd by the Supreme Court, directing reconsideration in light of BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore.
- On rehearing, the First Circuit reviewed the entire remand de novo, considered the arguments and recent circuit decisions addressing similar climate suits, and again affirmed remand.
- The court held: federal common-law displacement and Grable do not supply federal-question jurisdiction; the Clean Air Act does not completely preempt Rhode Island’s state claims; OCSLA and admiralty jurisdictional hooks fail; and bankruptcy-removal jurisdiction is not established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal common law / artful pleading | Rhode Island invokes state tort law only. | Defendants: claims implicate interstate/international emissions and therefore are governed by federal common law (removable). | Rejected — defendants failed to show necessity or a specific federal policy conflict; federal common law displaced by federal statutes. |
| Grable (federal-question via embedded federal issue) | Rhode Island: state-law claims do not necessarily raise federal issues. | Defendants: adjudication will necessarily implicate substantial federal interests (energy, foreign affairs, regulation). | Rejected — no federal issue is a necessary element of the state claims; Grable prongs not met. |
| Complete preemption (Clean Air Act) | Rhode Island: state-law remedy available; Clean Air Act does not displace these claims. | Defendants: Clean Air Act displaces federal common law and preempts state claims, producing exclusive federal cause of action. | Rejected — Clean Air Act contains savings clauses and does not supply an exclusive federal cause of action; complete preemption not shown. |
| OCSLA jurisdiction | Rhode Island: claims arise under state law, not OCS operations. | Defendants: substantial OCS operations by them connect the case to OCSLA ("in connection with"). | Rejected — plaintiff’s allegations do not arise out of or connect sufficiently (but-for/direct) to OCS operations; speculative economic effects insufficient. |
| Admiralty jurisdiction | Rhode Island: injuries are land-based coastal harms. | Defendants: extraction and operations occur on vessels/maritime platforms so admiralty applies. | Rejected — Grubart location/connection test fails: no vessel caused the land-based injury alleged. |
| Bankruptcy-removal jurisdiction | Rhode Island: claims against successor entities are state-law torts. | Defendants: litigation would affect interpretation/administration of historical bankruptcy plans (e.g., Texaco). | Rejected — no convincing showing that resolution would impact confirmed bankruptcy plans; argument inadequately developed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Prods. Co., 979 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2020) (prior First Circuit opinion in the same litigation)
- BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532 (U.S. 2021) (Supreme Court GVR directing further consideration)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (U.S. 2005) (test for federal jurisdiction where state claim necessarily raises a federal issue)
- Beneficial Nat'l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2003) (doctrine of complete preemption and its narrow scope)
- Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2011) (federal statutes can displace federal common law for GHG emissions)
- O'Melveny & Meyers v. FDIC, 512 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1994) (limits on judicial creation of federal common law; need for specific federal policy conflict)
- Boyle v. United Tech. Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (U.S. 1988) (federal-interest/conflict framework for federal common law)
- Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1995) (admiralty location and connection test)
- In re Deepwater Horizon, 745 F.3d 157 (5th Cir. 2014) (OCSLA jurisdictional framework applied to offshore operations)