BP P.L.C. v.

Mayor and City Council

of Baltimore
PETITIONER RESPONDENT
BP P.L.C., et al. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

DOCKET NO. DECIDED BY

19-1189 Roberts Court (/courts?court=Roberts Court )

LOWER COURT
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

CITATION ADVOCATES
593 US _ (2021) Kannon K. Shanmugam
(https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/593/19- (advocates/kannon_k_shanmugam)
1189) for the Petitioners
Brinton Lucas (advocates/brinton_lucas)
GRANTED for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the
Oct 2, 2020 Petitioners

ARGUED Victor M. Sher (advocates/victor_m_sher)

Jan 19, 2021 for the Respondents

DECIDED
May 17, 2021

Facts of the case

In July 2018, the Mayor and City of Baltimore filed suit in
Maryland state court against 26 oil and gas companies that
Maryland says are partly responsible for climate change.
 The complaint asserted eight causes of action, all founded
on Maryland law, and sought monetary damages, civil
penalties, and equitable relief. Two of the defendants
removed the case to federal court, asserting eight grounds
for removal. Baltimore then moved to remand the case
back to state court. The district court rejected all eight
grounds for removal and granted Baltimore’s motion for
remand back to state court.
The defendants appealed the remand order, and the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower
court, finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1442 does not provide a
proper basis for removal of the suit.

Question
Does federal law permit a court of appeals to review any
issue included in a district court’s order remanding a case to
state court, or only the ground for removal?

Conclusion
Sort:  by seniority by ideology
7–1 DECISION FOR BP

MAJORITY OPINION BY NEIL GORSUCH

Under 28 U.S.C. 1447(d), a federal appellate court has jurisdiction to review any
issue included in a district court’s order sending a case to state court when the
move to state court is based on either of two statutes, not just the ground for
removal itself.
Clarence Thomas Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Elena Kagan Brett M. Kavanaugh

n G. Roberts, Jr. Stephen G. Breyer Sonia Sotomayor Neil Gorsuch Amy Coney Ba

A federal appellate court has jurisdiction to consider all of a

defendant’s grounds for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).
Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 7-1 majority opinion of
 the Court. 
Section 1447(d) provides that “an order remanding a case
to the State court from which it was removed is not
reviewable on appeal or otherwise, except that an order
remanding a case to the State court from which it was
removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443 of this title shall
be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.” In this case, the
defendants had relied on the federal officer removal statute
in § 1442, which is precisely one of the situations in which §
1447(d) permits an appeal. While the Fourth Circuit
interpreted the provision as authorizing only the part of the
district court’s order discussing § 1442, the ordinary
meaning of § 1442—particularly the use of the word
“order”—does not support that interpretation. Rather, §
1447(d) permits appellate review of the district court’s
remand order without qualification. This conclusion is
consistent with the Court’s most analogous precedent,
Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199 (1996)
(https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/94-1387), in which it
held that another provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which
allows a district court to certify “an order,” is not tied to the
particular question formulated by the district court. Finally,
the Court found Baltimore’s policy arguments “cannot
overcome a clear statutory directive.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion,
arguing that the Court’s holding allows defendants to
“sidestep” § 1447(d)’s bar on appellate review simply by
“shoehorning a § 1442 or § 1443 argument into their case
for removal.” This, Justice Sotomayor argued, “lets the
exception swallow the rule.”
Justice Samuel Alito took no part in the consideration or
decision of the case.

Cite this page

APA Bluebook Chicago MLA
"BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-1189. Accessed 12 Jun. 2021.