Oct 272022

Energy Companies Petition U.S. Supreme Court to Review Remand of Climate Change Litigation to State Court

Greta T. Carlson and Samuel B. Boxerman
, ,

On October 14, 2022, BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and other major energy companies petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to send a climate change lawsuit back to state court (the Petition). In the underlying lawsuit, the City of Baltimore is seeking climate-change-related infrastructure damages for the defendants’ alleged deception of consumers and the public about climate change. The defendants previously removed the case to federal court, but the District Court for the District of Maryland remanded the case to state court—a decision the Fourth Circuit later upheld.

The Petition currently before the Supreme Court poses two questions: (1) whether federal common law necessarily and exclusively governs claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of interstate greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate and (2) whether a federal district court has jurisdiction over claims necessarily and exclusively governed by federal common law but labeled as arising under state law. In the Petition, the defendants argue that “federal law must govern controversies over interstate pollution, because those controversies touch basic interests of federalism and implicate the overriding federal interest in the need for a uniform rule of decision.” The Petition notes that the courts of appeals have issued differing opinions on whether federal common law governs climate change claims and urges the Supreme Court to review these questions to resolve the conflict among the federal courts.

The case is BP PLC et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, case number 22-361, in the U.S. Supreme Court.

This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.

Greta T. Carlson

Samuel B. Boxerman

Washington, D.C.

sboxerman@sidley.com

You might also like
Jarkesy’s Potential Implications for EPA Administrative Proceedings

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided SEC v. Jarkesy,[1] holding that when the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleges a defendant has violated securities antifraud provisions and seeks civil penalties, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial in federal court under the Seventh Amendment. The ruling restricts the SEC’s use of its own in-house administrative tribunal with its own administrative law judges (ALJs), which the SEC has historically used to pursue antifraud claims. While the Court’s ruling focuses on the SEC, the principles underlying the decision may be applied more broadly to restrict the ability of other federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to pursue civil penalties via their own administrative proceedings.

Environmental Law Implications of Loper Bright and the End of Chevron Deference

On Friday, June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron v. NRDC in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.[1] Although the Court’s decision to overturn Chevron was anticipated, Loper Bright nonetheless represents a paradigm shift because the Chevron doctrine had been a cornerstone of administrative law for 40 years.

U.S. Supreme Court Stays EPA Ozone Interstate Transport Rule

On Thursday, in Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that would have required the implementation of additional, significant emissions controls in power plants, pipelines, cement factories, glass factories, iron and steel mills, paper mills, and other industrial facilities across 23 states. The stay provides relief to those industries as they challenge various aspects of the rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit — challenges on which the Supreme Court found the states and industries were likely to succeed.