Maine v. BP p.l.c.

The federal district court for the District of Maine remanded to state court the State of Maine’s lawsuit alleging that fossil fuel industry defendants violated Maine law by deliberately misleading consumers and the public about their products’ contributions to climate change. The court found that the defendants failed to satisfy the requirement for federal officer removal that any action by the defendants under a federal officer’s authority have a sufficient “nexus” to the conduct charged in Maine’s complaint—i.e., the defendants’ acts of “deceiving consumers and the public about climate change.” The district court was not persuaded by the defendants’ arguments attempting to distinguish this case from <a href="https://www.climatecasechart.com/collections/rhode-island-v-shell-oil-products-co-_638fae">Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp.</a>, in which the First Circuit rejected federal officer removal as a basis for removing a similar case filed by the State of Rhode Island. The district court found that new federal activities related to production and distribution of fossil fuels not asserted in Rhode Island and new evidence regarding federal supervision and direction of a previously asserted activity did “not purport to establish any connection between the Defendants’ federally directed activities and their deceptive marketing and failures to warn, which is the only conduct that matters here for purposes of the nexus analysis.” The court also declined to “broaden the scope of the nexus inquiry” to consider the relationship of Maine’s alleged climate change injuries to the asserted federal activities. The court granted Maine’s request for attorney fees and costs. The court said that the issue of costs and fees was a “close call” since federal officer removal was “a complex and evolving area of law,” but found that awarding costs and fees was warranted because the First Circuit had twice rejected the removal arguments, as had at least 12 federal courts across the country.