Sunoco LP v. City & County of Honolulu

On April 24, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court denied fossil fuel industry defendants’ petitions for writ of certiorari seeking review of decisions affirming remand orders that sent climate change cases brought by state and local governments back to state courts. The fossil fuel companies had asked the Court to consider whether there was federal jurisdiction over state-law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate or transboundary greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate because federal common law necessarily governs such claims. The petition in cases brought by the City and County of Honolulu and the County of Maui also presented a question regarding the application of the federal officer removal statute. Justice Alito did not participate in the consideration of or decision on the petitions.

Briefing was completed for the petition for writ of certiorari in Honolulu's and Maui County's cases on February 22, 2023. The petition was distributed for the justices’ March 17 conference and had not been rescheduled as of March 1.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief arguing that the Ninth Circuit misapplied the federal-officer removal statute.

Fossil fuel companies filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking the Supreme Court’s review of the Ninth Circuit's decision affirming the remand of the Hawaii local governments' cases to state court. The fossil fuel companies presented the following question, which is the same as or similar to the question presented in other climate cases for which certiorari petitions are currently pending: “Whether a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over nominally state-law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of transboundary greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate, on the ground that federal law necessarily and exclusively governs such claims.” In Honolulu and Maui's case, the companies also sought review of the following question regarding the application of the federal officer removal statute: Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that the federal officer removal statute “precludes removal by federal officers and persons acting under them unless the removing defendant’s colorable federal defense arises out of the defendant’s federal duty.”