Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitdefendantjurisdictionstatuteappealcivil rights
defendantjurisdictionstatuteappealcivil rights

Related Cases

Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 49 Fed.R.Serv.3d 739, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 10,068, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3344, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4129
View Case »
Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576, 8 ERC 2169, 6 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,532
View Case »
Center for Environmental Science Accuracy and Reliability v. National Park Service, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2016 WL 4524758
View Case »
Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas, 137 F.3d 1146, 46 ERC 1465, 28 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,044, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1524, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2160
View Case »
Medical Waste Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Mayor and Council of City of Baltimore, Not Reported in F.Supp., 1991 WL 340561
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S. 230, 141 S.Ct. 1532, 209 L.Ed.2d 631, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 21,151, 21 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4450, 2021 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4717, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 798

Facts

Baltimore's Mayor and City Council filed a lawsuit against various energy companies in Maryland state court, claiming that the companies concealed the environmental impacts of the fossil fuels they promoted. The defendants removed the case to federal court, citing several grounds for federal jurisdiction, including the federal officer removal statute. The City argued that the defendants' grounds for removal did not justify federal jurisdiction, and the district court agreed, remanding the case back to state court. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the remand, leading to the Supreme Court's review.

Three years ago, Baltimore's mayor and city council (we refer to them collectively as the City) filed suit in Maryland state court.

Issue

Does 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) permit a court of appeals to review any issue in a district court order remanding a case to state court where the defendant premised removal in part on the federal officer removal statute, § 1442, or the civil rights removal statute, § 1443?

Does 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) permit a court of appeals to review any issue in a district court order remanding a case to state court where the defendant premised removal in part on the federal officer removal statute, § 1442, or the civil rights removal statute, § 1443?

Rule

The ordinary meaning of § 1447(d) allows appellate review of the entire remand order when a defendant relies on § 1442 or § 1443 as a ground for removal.

The ordinary meaning of § 1447(d)’s text permits appellate review of the district court's entire remand order when a defendant relies on § 1442 or § 1443 as a ground for removal.

Analysis

The Supreme Court determined that the Fourth Circuit erred in limiting its review to only the part of the remand order addressing the federal officer removal ground. The Court emphasized that the text of § 1447(d) permits review of the entire remand order, as the district court's order rejected all grounds for removal. The Court also noted that the defendants' reliance on multiple federal statutes for removal does not restrict the appellate court's ability to review the entire order.

The Court held that the statute's grant of appellate review for the 'order,' meant the entire order was reviewable, not just the part of the order containing the 'controlling question of law.'

Conclusion

The Supreme Court vacated the Fourth Circuit's decision and remanded the case for further consideration, affirming that the appellate court has jurisdiction to review all grounds for removal.

The Fourth Circuit erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider all of the defendants’ grounds for removal under § 1447(d).

Who won?

The energy companies prevailed in the Supreme Court, as the Court ruled that the appellate court could review the entire remand order, not just the federal officer removal ground.

The Supreme Court, Justice Gorsuch, held that statute, allowing for appellate review of orders remanding a case to the state court from which it was removed pursuant to federal officer removal statute or civil rights removal statute, permitted Court of Appeals to review entire remand order, not just part of order deciding the federal officer removal ground.

You must be