American Petroleum Institute v. Minnesota

The U.S. Supreme Court denied fossil fuel industry defendants’ petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmance of an order remanding to state court the State of Minnesota’s lawsuit seeking to hold the defendants liable for climate change harms. Justice Kavanaugh would have granted the petition.

Five amicus briefs were filed in support of fossil fuel industry defendants’ petition for writ of certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of the Eighth Circuit’s affirmance of the remand order in the State of Minnesota’s case. The amicus briefs were filed by American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce, American Tort Reform Association, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Association of Manufacturers, and 17 states led by Alabama. Minnesota’s response to the certiorari petition is due October 23.

Fossil fuel industry defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of the Eighth Circuit’s affirmance of the remand to state court of the State of Minnesota’s lawsuit alleging that the defendants caused a “climate-change crisis” in the state through a “campaign of deception.” The petition presents the question of whether a federal district court has removal jurisdiction based on federal question jurisdiction “over putative state-law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of interstate greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate.” The defendants contended that the Eighth Circuit’s decision was incorrect and that it implicated “two circuit conflicts on important and recurring issues of federal law”: (1) whether the well-pleaded complaint rule precludes removal jurisdiction over claims necessarily and exclusively governed by federal common law but labeled as state-law claims and (2) “whether federal law necessarily and exclusively governs claims seeking redress for the alleged effect of interstate greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate.” The defendants acknowledged that the Court had recently declined review of these issues but argued that the Court’s intervention “has only become more pressing” because “similar cases will continue to proliferate, and similar claims could be brought against members of any number of industries that plaintiffs believe have contributed to climate change.”