Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Walker

ExxonMobil asked the federal court to remand the action to state court and to award it costs and fees. ExxonMobil argued that the federal court did not have jurisdiction because its action was a pre-enforcement challenge to the subpoena that would be treated as unripe under Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals precedent. ExxonMobil contended that Texas state courts had a more expansive conception of ripeness for declaratory judgment actions and would exercise jurisdiction over the action.

Exxon Mobil Corporation (ExxonMobil) filed a lawsuit in a Texas state court against the Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI), whose office had issued a subpoena to ExxonMobil under the territory’s Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The subpoena said that ExxonMobil misrepresented its contributions to climate change to defraud consumers and the government. ExxonMobil’s petition for declaratory relief asserted that the subpoena was “a pretextual use of law enforcement power to deter ExxonMobil from participating in ongoing public deliberations about climate change and to fish through decades of ExxonMobil’s documents with the hope of finding some ammunition to enhance” the attorney general’s policy stance. The lawsuit also named a Washington law firm that represented the attorney general and one of the law firm’s lawyers as defendants. ExxonMobil alleged causes of action for violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as abuse of process under common law. The petition sought a declaration that the subpoena was unenforceable.