Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp.

–

The district court stayed its remand order until October 24, 2019 or until Justice Breyer acts on the defendants' stay application, whichever occurs earlier. The court said it would consider whether to extend the order if Justice Breyer did not act by October 24.

–

–

On September 11, 2019, the federal district court for the District of Rhode Island denied oil and gas companies’ motion for a stay of the court’s July 22 decision remanding the State of Rhode Island’s lawsuit seeking to hold the companies liable for climate change impacts. Pursuant to a consent order, the remand order will not be entered until October 10, 2019.

–

–

–

–

–

The federal district court for the District of Rhode Island remanded the State of Rhode Island’s climate change lawsuit against oil and gas companies to state court. The court found that the companies had not carried their burden of showing that the case belonged in federal court. First, the court rejected the companies’ arguments that the State artfully pleaded ¬¬its claims to avoid federal jurisdiction. The court said federal common law—which the defendants said necessarily governed the State’s claims—could not completely preempt the State’s public nuisance claim “absent congressional say-so.” The court also was not persuaded that the Clean Air Act or foreign affairs doctrine completely preempted the state-law claims. In addition, the court found that the issues of foreign affairs, federal regulations, and navigable waters raised by the companies were not disputed and substantial federal issues that the federal court could entertain “without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.” The court said the federal issues were issues that the defendants “may press in the course of this litigation, but that are not perforce presented by the State’s claims.” The court also rejected the defendants’ arguments for removal under “bespoke jurisdictional law,” i.e., the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, federal enclave jurisdiction, the federal officer removal statute, the bankruptcy removal statute, and admiralty jurisdiction. The court stayed the remand order for 60 days to allow the parties to brief whether a stay pending appeal is warranted.

–

Rhode Island notified the court of the District of Maryland's order remanding Baltimore's lawsuit against oil and gas companies to state court.

–

–

–

–

–

Oil and gas companies filed papers opposing Rhode Island’s motion to remand its lawsuit seeking to hold them liable for climate change impacts to Rhode Island state court. The companies argued that the case “raises federal claims that belong in federal court” and that Rhode Island “cannot avoid the comprehensive role federal law plays” through “selective pleading and strategic omission.” The companies asserted that the case “threatens to interfere with longstanding federal policies over matters of uniquely national importance, including energy policy, environmental protection, and foreign affairs.” They contested Rhode Island’s assertion that the requested remedies would redress only injuries within Rhode Island, arguing that Rhode Island sought to hold them liable for their “global conduct” and for harms that occurred all over the world and that had not relation to their conduct. The companies asserted a number of possible bases for federal jurisdiction. First, they argued that federal common law controls Rhode Island’s claims. Second, they argued that the claims arise under federal law because they necessarily raise a substantial and disputed federal issue because the nuisance claim “unavoidably second-guess the reasonableness of the balance struck by federal energy policy.” Third, they contended that the Clean Air Act and other federal statutes completely preempt Rhode Island’s claims. Fourth, they asserted that there is jurisdiction under “various jurisdiction-granting statutes and doctrines”: the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the federal officer removal statute, the federal enclaves doctrine, the bankruptcy removal statute, and federal admiralty jurisdiction.

–

Rhode Island also moved to remand its climate change case against fossil fuel companies to state court. First, Rhode Island said the defendants’ assertion that federal common law necessarily governed its claims was an ordinary preemption defense that did not confer federal jurisdiction. The State also contested the defendants’ contention that climate change tort claims must be exclusively pleaded under federal common law and argued that its claims fell outside the scope of federal common law. The State also disputed the contentions that its claims necessarily raised substantial, disputed federal questions and that the Clean Air Act completely preempted its claims. In addition, the court argued against jurisdiction based on the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, enclave jurisdiction, the federal officer removal statute, bankruptcy removal provisions, and admiralty jurisdiction.