Chevron Corp. v. City of Oakland

On June 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court denied fossil fuel companies’ petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision reversing the district court’s 2018 denial of Oakland’s and San Francisco’s motions to remand their climate change nuisance cases to California state court. The petition had requested that the Court consider the questions of “[w]hether putative state-law tort claims alleging harm from global climate change are removable because they arise under federal law” and “[w]hether a plaintiff is barred from challenging removal on appeal after curing any jurisdictional defect and litigating the case to final judgment.” The cities’ renewed motion for remand is currently pending in the district court, with the cities arguing against the companies’ remaining grounds for removal: federal-officer removal, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, enclave jurisdiction, and bankruptcy removal. The cities also have filed a motion to amend their complaints to withdraw federal common law public nuisance claims that they added after the district court denied remand.

Briefing was completed on the fossil fuel companies’ petition for writ of certiorari, and briefs were distributed for the justices’ June 10, 2021 conference.

In their brief opposing certiorari, the cities framed the questions presented as “[w]hether a California state law public nuisance claim alleging wrongful and deceptive promotion of hazardous consumer goods ‘arises under’ a congressionally displaced body of federal common law regarding interstate air pollution for purposes of removal jurisdiction” and “[w]hether respondents waived their right to appeal an erroneously denied remand motion by filing an amended complaint to conform to that erroneous ruling while expressly preserving their appellate rights, and then opposing petitioners’ motion to dismiss that amended complaint.” The cities argued that no existing federal common law “governs” their claims under the California representative public nuisance law, and that the Ninth Circuit’s application of the well-pleaded complaint rule did not warrant review. The cities also contended that the Ninth Circuit’s application of the Court’s precedent concerning whether post-removal amendment of complaints waived objections did not warrant review. In addition, the cities argued that the questions were not “certworthy” because they “arise in only a tiny category of cases” and because the petition was a “poor vehicle” to review the questions since there had been no final determination on the jurisdictional issue raised.

–

–

–

–