Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

The federal district court for the Western District of Washington granted the Makah Indian Tribe’s and Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe’s motions to remand their climate change cases against fossil fuel companies to state court. The court rejected arguments that there was federal jurisdiction based on complete preemption of the Tribes’ public nuisance and failure to warn claims by federal common law governing possessory land claims based on aboriginal title. The court concluded that even if federal common law could completely preempt certain state-law claims, the Tribes’ claims would not be completely preempted because they were “not in fact reducible to injury to land.” The court also found that the Tribes’ state-law claims did not necessarily raise substantial and actually disputed federal issues about tribal land rights or about whether the Tribes might recover tribal healthcare costs ultimately borne by the federal government. The court further found that exercising jurisdiction over the Tribes’ state-law claims would disrupt the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Fossil fuel companies removed cases brought by two Tribes to federal court in Washington. The companies contended that the cases were removable because they were brought by Tribes “for alleged damage to tribal lands and natural resources, including those held in trust by the United States, and thus invoke[] … federal question jurisdiction” and also because they implicate federal jurisdiction by seeking “to recoup health care costs that have allegedly been incurred in response to climate change” by the Tribes. The documents for the proceedings in federal court are available on the page for Makah Indian Tribe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

Filing Year For Action

The Washington Superior Court denied fossil fuel companies’ emergency motion to stay proceedings pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s resolution of Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. The Superior Court found that a potential stay of more than a year would “greatly prejudice” the Tribes due to the risk of evidentiary loss. The court also found that the defendants did not attempt to show a clear case of hardship or inequity that would outweigh the Tribes’ showing of prejudice. The Superior Court also cited “a significant probability” that the Supreme Court would not reach the issue of whether state law climate deception claims were preempted by federal law.