BP p.l.c. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

Background

Baltimore’s mayor and city council sued several energy companies in state court, accusing them of promoting fossil fuels while concealing environmental harms. The companies removed the case to federal court, citing multiple federal statutes including the federal-officer removal law. The district court examined all removal arguments and remanded the case to state court. The Fourth Circuit said it could review only the part of the remand order about the federal-officer statute, creating a split among appeals courts and prompting review by the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the federal statute that bars most appeals of remand orders still allows an appeal of the whole remand order when a defendant invoked the federal-officer or civil-rights removal law. The Court focused on the statute’s plain language, which makes “an order remanding a case” reviewable when removal was “pursuant to” those laws. It relied on prior decisions about appeals of “orders” and concluded that invoking the federal-officer statute in the removal notice makes the entire remand order appealable. The Court rejected arguments for a narrower reading and sent the case back to the Fourth Circuit to decide the other removal grounds.

Real world impact

The ruling means defendants who cite the federal-officer or civil-rights removal laws can obtain appellate review of the whole remand order, not just those specific questions. That may lead to more appeals and could delay state-court proceedings, but it also lets appeals courts address alternative federal removal grounds that might dispose of cases sooner. This decision addresses procedure, not the merits of Baltimore’s claims.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Sotomayor dissented, warning the decision lets defendants gain appellate review by tacking on federal-officer or civil-rights arguments and that Congress likely intended a narrower rule.