Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute

On January 24, 2024 (15 days after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Eighth Circuit’s affirmance of the remand order in Minnesota’s case), the federal district court for the District of Minnesota lifted the stay on the case and remanded it to state court.

The federal district court for the District of Minnesota stayed its order remanding Minnesota’s climate change lawsuit against the fossil fuel industry. The court found that a stay was prudent both due to uncertainty about the impacts on the Eighth Circuit’s consideration of the remand order of the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c. and the Second Circuit’s decision in City of New York v. Chevron Corp. and also because it was possible there might be a final disposition in state court prior to resolution of the Eighth Circuit’s appeal, which would be a “concrete and irreparable” injury to the defendants. The court also found that judicial economy and conservation of resources weighed in favor of a stay. Because the balance of factors was likely to shift over time, the court said it would reevaluate the stay if the Eighth Circuit appeal was not resolved in 12 months. The court also denied Minnesota’s motion for attorney fees, concluding that “removal advanced critical legal questions that have not yet been resolved by the higher courts.”

Minnesota filed a motion for costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of defendants’ “improper removal.”

The district court granted the State of Minnesota’s motion to remand its case, which asserts state law claims under common law and consumer protection statutes. The district court found that the defendants failed to establish that federal jurisdiction was warranted on any of the seven independent grounds they asserted: federal common law; presence of disputed and substantial federal issues (the Grable doctrine); the federal officer removal statute; the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; federal enclaves; the Class Action Fairness Act; and diversity.

Three defendants in Minnesota’s case seeking to hold the fossil fuel industry liable for causing a “climate-change crisis” moved to stay the case and hold in abeyance a decision on Minnesota’s motion to remand until the Supreme Court issues a decision in the Baltimore case and on the petition for writ of certiorari in Oakland and San Francisco’s case. Minnesota opposed the stay.

Fossil fuel companies and other defendants removed Minnesota's climate change-based consumer protection cases to federal court. Minnesota’s case also involves other claims, including strict liability and negligent failure to warn claims. The defendants asserted multiple grounds for removal: that the cases raise disputed and substantial federal questions, that the claims necessarily arise under federal common law, that the claims arise out of federal enclaves, that federal-officer removal applies, that jurisdiction is proper under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, that the case is removable under the Class Action Fairness Act, and that diversity citizenship creates removal jurisdiction.