Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Co., L.L.C.

• Decision Date: 23 May 2022
• Docket Number: 19-1818
• Parties: State of RHODE ISLAND, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. SHELL OIL PRODUCTS CO., L.L.C.; Chevron Corp.; Chevron USA, INC.; E xxonmobil Corp.; BP, PLC ; BP America, Inc. ; BP Products North America, Inc. ; Royal Dutch Shell P.L.C.; Motiva Enterprises, L.L.C.; Citgo Petroleum Corp. ; Conocophillips; Conocophillips Co.; Phillips 66; Marathon Oil Co.; Marathon Petroleum Corp.; Marathon Petroleum Co., L.P. ; Speedway, L.L.C.; Hess Corp.; Lukoil Pan Americas L.L.C.; and Does 1-100, Defendants, Appellants, Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc. Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

35 F.4th 44

State of RHODE ISLAND, Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.SHELL OIL PRODUCTS CO., L.L.C.; Chevron Corp.; Chevron USA, INC.; E xxonmobil Corp.; BP, PLC ; BP America, Inc. ; BP Products North America, Inc. ; Royal Dutch Shell P.L.C.; Motiva Enterprises, L.L.C.; Citgo Petroleum Corp. ; Conocophillips; Conocophillips Co.; Phillips 66; Marathon Oil Co.; Marathon Petroleum Corp.; Marathon Petroleum Co., L.P. ; Speedway, L.L.C.; Hess Corp.; Lukoil Pan Americas L.L.C.; and Does 1-100, Defendants, Appellants,Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc. Defendant.

No. 19-1818

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

May 23, 2022

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Thomas G. Hungar, Anne Champion, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Gerald J. Petros, Robin L. Main, Ryan M. Gainor, Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP, Neal S. Manne, Susman Godfrey LLP, John A. Tarantino, Patricia K. Rocha, Nicole J. Benjamin, Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C., Nancy G. Milburn, Matthew T. Heartney, Jonathan W. Hughes, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Matthew T. Oliverio, Oliverio & Marcaccio LLP, Theodore V. Wells, Jr., Daniel J. Toal, Jaren Janghorbani, Kannon Shanmugam, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, Garrison LLP, Jeffrey S. Brenner, Nixon Peabody LLP, David C. Frederick, Grace W. Knofczynski, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., Daniel B. Levin, John E. Bulman, Stephen J. MacGillivray, Pierce Atwood LLP, Nathan P. Eimer, Pamela R. Hanebutt, Lisa S. Meyer, Raphael Janove, Ryan J. Walsh, Eimer Stahl LLP, Michael J. Colucci, Olenn & Penza, LLP, Sean C. Grimsley, Jameson R. Jones, Daniel R. Brody, Bartlit Beck LLP, Robert G. Flanders, Jr., Timothy K. Baldwin, Whelan, Corrente & Flanders, LLP, Steven M. Bauer, Margaret A. Tough, Latham & Watkins LLP, Shannon S. Broome, Shawn Patrick Regan, Ann Marie Mortimer, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Jeffrey B. Pine, Patrick C. Lynch, Lynch & Pine, Jason C. Preciphs, Roberts, Carroll, Feldstein & Peirce, Inc., J. Scott Janoe, Megan Berge, Baker Botts L.L.P., Lauren Motola-Davis, Samuel A. Kennedy-Smith, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Tracie J. Renfroe, Oliver Peter Thoma, King & Spaulding LLP, Stephen M. Prignano, McIntyre Tate LLP, James Stengel, Robert Reznick, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, on supplemental brief for appellants.

Victor M. Sher, Matthew K. Edling, Sher Edling LLP, and Neil F.X. Kelly, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, on supplemental brief for appellee.

Andrew R. Varcoe, Stephanie A. Maloney, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, William M. Jay, Andrew Kim, and Goodwin Procter LLP, on supplemental brief for The Chamber of Commerce of The United States of America, amicus curiae.

Linda E. Kelly, Patrick Hedren, Erica Klenicki, Manufacturers' Center for Legal Action, Philip S. Goldberg, Christopher E. Appel, and Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., on supplemental brief for The National Association of Manufacturers, Energy Marketers of America, and The National Association of Convenience Stores, amici curiae.

Steve Marshall, Attorney General of Alabama, Treg Taylor, Attorney General of Alaska, Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General of Arkansas, Christopher Charr, Attorney General of Georgia, Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Thomas M. Fisher, Solicitor General, Kian J. Hudson, Deputy Solicitor General, Julia C. Payne, Deputy Attorney General, Derek Schmidt, Attorney General of Kansas, Daniel Cameron, Attorney General of Kentucky, Jeff Landry, Attorney General of Louisiana, Lynn Fitch, Attorney General of Mississippi, Austin Knudsen, Attorney General of Montana, Doug Peterson, Attorney General of Nebraska, Alan Wilson, Attorney General of South Carolina, Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, Sean Reyes, Attorney General of Utah, and Bridget Hill, Attorney General of Wyoming, on supplemental brief for State of Alabama, State of Alaska, State of Arkansas, State of Georgia, State of Indiana, State of Kansas, Commonwealth of Kentucky, State of Louisiana, State of Mississippi, State of Montana, State of Nebraska, State of South Carolina, State of Texas, State of Utah, and State of Wyoming, amici curiae.

Robert S. Peck and Center For Constitutional Litigation, P.C., on supplemental brief for The National League of Cities, The U.S. Conference of Mayors, and The International Municipal Lawyers Association, amici curiae.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California, William Tong, Attorney General of Connecticut, Kathleen Jennings, Attorney General of Delaware, Clare E. Connors, Attorney General of Hawaii, Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General of Maine, Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland, Maura Healey, Attorney General of Massachusetts, Seth Schofield, Senior Appellate Counsel, Keith Ellison, Attorney General of Minnesota, Leigh Currie, Special Assistant Attorney General, Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General of New Jersey, Hector Balderas, Attorney General of New Mexico, Letitia James, Attorney General of New York, Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General of Oregon, Josh Shapiro, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., Attorney General of Vermont, Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General of Washington, Joshua L. Kaul, Attorney General of Wisconsin, and Karl A. Racine, Attorney General of the District of Columbia, on supplemental brief for State of California, State of Connecticut, State of Delaware, State of Hawaii, State of Maine, State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of Minnesota, State of New Jersey, State of New Mexico, State of New York, State of Oregon, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Vermont, State of Washington, State of Wisconsin, and District of Columbia, amici curiae.

Peter Huffman on supplemental brief for Natural Resources Defense Council, amicus curiae.

Kaighn Smith, Jr., and Drummond Woodsum on supplemental brief for Scholars of Foreign Relations and Federal Courts, amici curiae.^**

Before Thompson and Howard, Circuit Judges.^*

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.

This is our second pass at a climate-change case that requires us to explore the mind-numbing complexities of federal removal jurisdiction. See Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Prods. Co., 979 F.3d 50, 54 (1st Cir. 2020) (" Shell Oil"). We start by bringing the reader up to speed.¹

Like other state and local governments across the country, Rhode Island claims that the Energy Companies named in our caption knew for decades that burning fossil fuels is damaging the earth's atmosphere but duped the public into buying more and more of their products (consequences be damned) — all to line their very deep pockets. See id. at 53. Seeking relief for the catastrophic harm they supposedly have done (and will do) to its non-federal property and natural resources, Rhode Island — also like other governments elsewhere — sued the Energy Companies in state court. See id. at 53-54. And its longish complaint alleges state-law causes of action for public nuisance, strict-liability design defect, negligent design defect, negligent failure to warn, impairment of public-trust resources, and violations of the state's Environmental Rights Act.

Not eager to try this case in a Rhode Island court, the Energy Companies removed the matter to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute, the federal-question doctrine, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (just "OCSLA" from now on), the admiralty-jurisdiction statute, and the bankruptcy-removal statute. But to their disappointment, the district judge thought that none of those grounds could provide a hook on which removal could hang. See id. And so he remanded the case to state court. See id.

On the Energy Companies' appeal — in our first go-around — we concluded that we could only review the federal-officer removal ground. See id. at 58-60. And ruling that the Energy Companies had not satisfied the requirements of the federal-officer removal statute, we affirmed the judge's remand order. See id. at 60. But on the Energy Companies' petition for certiorari , the Supreme Court (without reversing our decision on the merits) GVR'd us (short for g ranted certiorari, v acated, and r emanded) and instructed that we give "further consideration in light of BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 1532, 209 L.Ed.2d 631 (2021)" — a then-hot-off-the-presses opinion requiring courts of appeals to review the judge's entire remand order and consider all of the defendants' removal grounds, not just the part of the order resolving the federal-officer removal ground.² See Shell Oil Prods. Co. v. Rhode Island, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 2666, 210 L.Ed.2d 830 (2021) (Mem.).

Pleased to oblige, we requested and received supplemental briefs from counsel.³ In them, the parties continue battling over whether the Energy Companies can remove the case on various bases. And it is to this dispute that we turn to below, using a de novo standard (which gives zero deference to the judge's views) and adding more details when needed to put the arguments into workable perspective. See Amoche v. Guarantee Tr. Life Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 41, 48 (1st Cir. 2009). But to give away the opinion's ending up front: leaning hard on our sibling circuits' analyses in comparable climate-change cases — particularly County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., 32 F.4th 733 (9th Cir. 2022) (" San Mateo"); Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C., 31 F.4th 178 (4th Cir. 2022) (" BP P.L.C."); Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., 25 F.4th 1238 (10th Cir. 2022) (" Suncor"); City of Oakland v. BP PLC, 969 F.3d 895, 907 (9th Cir. 2020) (" Oakland"), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 2776, 210 L.Ed.2d 916 (2021) — we once more affirm the judge's remand order.

Overarching Considerations

Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, charted (within constitutional limits) by federal statute. See, e.g., López-Muñoz v. Triple-S Salud, Inc., 754 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2014) ; Fayard v. Ne. Vehicle Servs., LLC, 533 F.3d 42, 48 (1st Cir. 2008) (noting that "[b]...