{"id":2680,"date":"2022-06-09T18:35:37","date_gmt":"2022-06-09T23:35:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=2680"},"modified":"2026-02-03T17:16:26","modified_gmt":"2026-02-03T23:16:26","slug":"state-and-local-climate-lawsuits-are-4-1-at-the-federal-circuit-courts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=2680","title":{"rendered":"State and Local Climate Lawsuits are 4-1 at the Federal Circuit Courts"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

On May 23, 2022, the First Circuit\u00a0upheld<\/a>\u00a0a decision from the\u00a0United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island to remand Rhode Island\u2019s climate change lawsuit back to state court. This marks the fourth time a federal circuit court has upheld a decision remanding a government\u2019s climate change lawsuit against fossil fuel companies, the other three being cases from\u00a0Baltimore, Maryland<\/a>,\u00a0San Mateo County, California,<\/a> and\u00a0Boulder, Colorado<\/a>. For the fossil fuel companies, this pattern is a stark string of losses, forcing the cases to remain in state courts in which the fossil fuel companies very decidedly\u00a0do not<\/a> want to litigate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Five states and some sixteen<\/a> local governments have filed lawsuits related to climate change against a plethora of fossil fuel defendants. In broad terms, the lawsuits seek to hold fossil fuel companies responsible for products liability claims<\/a>: namely that the companies marketed and sold products that they knew would cause harm and failed to warn about the products\u2019 risks. If the state and local plaintiffs prevail, the effect could devastate the fossil fuel industry. Indeed, if even one governmental plaintiff wins, other state and local governments will swiftly file similar lawsuits. After all, even less-progressive jurisdictions will have a hard time passing up the prospect of a likely win against deep-pocketed defendants. Understandably, then, the fossil fuel defendants have fought these cases tooth and nail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nearly all the state and local climate cases were filed in plaintiff-friendly state courts, and in each instance, the fossil fuel defendants have removed the cases to federal court. As the thinking goes, federal courts are more likely to be favorable to the fossil fuel defendants. In response, the state and local plaintiffs have moved to remand the cases back to state courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Esoteric issues of removal have thwarted litigative progress, however. Complicated questions about the federal officer removal statute even went up to the Supreme Court last term in BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore<\/em><\/a>. <\/em>On narrow jurisdictional grounds, the Supreme Court sided with the fossil fuel defendants that the Fourth Circuit should have addressed all removal grounds when considering the motion for remand. At the time, the May 2021 opinion was heralded as a big win<\/a> for the fossil fuel companies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But comparatively little fanfare has sounded for the subsequent wins for plaintiffs across four circuit courts. Heeding the Supreme Court\u2019s instruction in Baltimore <\/em>to address all the grounds for removal, each circuit court has done so and found in favor of the state and local climate plaintiffs. First, in February of this year, the Tenth Circuit found<\/a> that Boulder\u2019s lawsuit was not completely preempted or displaced by federal common or statutory law. As it only raised state law claims, it belonged in state court. The Fourth<\/a> and Ninth<\/a> Circuits quickly followed in April, finding that the City of Baltimore and the County of San Mateo\u2019s lawsuits, respectively, belonged in state court. Thus, the deck was stacked when the First Circuit held the same for Rhode Island\u2019s lawsuit. In fact, the First Circuit noted<\/a> that it was \u201cleaning hard on our sibling circuits\u2019 analyses in comparable climate-change cases[.]\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The one exception\u2014and the one blemish on the state and local climate cases\u2019 record of success\u2014is New York City\u2019s case. In April 2021, before the Supreme Court\u2019s Baltimore <\/em>decision, the Second Circuit held<\/a> that \u201ceach of the City\u2019s claims is barred\u201d and that, therefore, the \u201ccomplaint must be dismissed.\u201d What accounts for the difference here? New York City filed its complaint in federal court in the first instance. Without a removal posture, the federal court was \u201cfree to consider the [defendants\u2019] preemption defense on its own terms, not under the heightened standard unique to the removability inquiry.\u201d As the First Circuit noted<\/a> in Rhode Island\u2019s case, this procedural difference was key.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, the state and local climate cases, with one exception, live to fight another day in state courts. Moreover, they do so in forums that the fossil fuel defendants fought for over four years to avoid. While it is too early to proclaim victory for the plaintiffs, it is not too soon to acknowledge that the state and local plaintiffs have set themselves up very well, jurisdictionally-speaking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The next steps depend on what the fossil fuel defendants do next. They could, conceivably, petition for certiorari in the First Circuit case, but the odds there are against<\/a> the Supreme Court taking up the case, particularly with the lack of a genuine circuit split on the legal issues. In the other cases, the fossil fuel defendants are likely<\/a> readying motions to dismiss on personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, but it seems unlikely that every defendant and every claim will be dismissed<\/a>. Thus, at long last, the state and local climate cases will be heading towards discovery, although, of course, that will not be an end to the legal squabbles<\/a>. Keep an eye on state courts in Rhode Island, Maryland, California, and Colorado to see what happens next.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sean Lyness is a Faculty Fellow at New England Law Boston. He wishes<\/em> to thank the staff of the<\/em> Northwestern University Law Review Online for their excellent editing, especially Taylor Nchako and Adam Lefkowitz.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On May 23, 2022, the First Circuit\u00a0upheld\u00a0a decision from the\u00a0United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island to remand Rhode Island\u2019s climate change lawsuit back to state court. This marks the fourth time a federal circuit court has upheld a decision remanding a government\u2019s climate change lawsuit against fossil fuel companies, the other three being cases from\u00a0Baltimore, Maryland,\u00a0San Mateo County, California, and\u00a0Boulder, Colorado. For the fossil fuel companies, this pattern is a stark string of losses, forcing the…<\/p>\n

Read More Read More<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":175,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2680","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9jSvD-He","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":2536,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=2536","url_meta":{"origin":2680,"position":0},"title":"Personal Jurisdiction in Class Actions After Bristol-Myers Squibb: How Ford May Foreshadow the Supreme Court\u2019s Answer","author":"Connor Cohen","date":"July 28, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Federal circuit courts have recently split over applying Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court (BMS) to class actions. The Supreme Court\u2019s watershed personal jurisdiction opinion in 2017 held that courts can only exercise specific personal jurisdiction over plaintiffs\u2019 claims that arise out of or relate to defendants\u2019 conduct in the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Board member contribution"","block_context":{"text":"Board member contribution","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=55"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1511,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1511","url_meta":{"origin":2680,"position":1},"title":"COVID-19 and the Shadow Docket: The Supreme Court and the Pandemic","author":"Lavi M. Ben Dor","date":"July 20, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court has two dockets. The first\u2014and far more public\u2014docket comprises the roughly eighty cases each Term that undergo extensive briefing and oral arguments before the Court. These cases can take months, or even more than a year, from the filing of a cert petition to issuance of an\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Constitutional Issues"","block_context":{"text":"Constitutional Issues","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=134"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":593,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=593","url_meta":{"origin":2680,"position":2},"title":"A Good Bet? Legalized Sports Gambling May Be Coming Soon","author":"Brendan Mochoruk","date":"March 12, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"On December 4, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, a case in which the State of New Jersey is challenging the constitutionality of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA). Passed by Congress in 1992, PASPA banned all state-sanctioned sports gambling,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Board member contribution"","block_context":{"text":"Board member contribution","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=55"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/8438307368_16cd8dd77e_k-1024x683.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/8438307368_16cd8dd77e_k-1024x683.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/8438307368_16cd8dd77e_k-1024x683.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":58,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=58","url_meta":{"origin":2680,"position":3},"title":"BIPA and Its Federal Problems","author":"Alexander Ogren","date":"November 8, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"It's not fun to have your credit card or identity stolen. It takes time, money, and mental energy to right yourself. Now, instead of just using cards as the gatekeepers, many companies are using customers\u2019 biometric information, such as fingerprints and facial geometry scans,\u00a0to\u00a0control access to private information. But unlike\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Board member contribution"","block_context":{"text":"Board member contribution","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=55"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/4599271172_8d08e52340_b-1024x685.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/4599271172_8d08e52340_b-1024x685.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/4599271172_8d08e52340_b-1024x685.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":2567,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=2567","url_meta":{"origin":2680,"position":4},"title":"Brnovich v. DNC: The New Test for Voting Rights","author":"Taylor Hoffman","date":"September 19, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"In the wake of the 2020 election, a wave of restrictive voting laws were enacted across the nation. And as the January 6th attack showcased the fragility of our democracy, voting rights are top of mind for many. This is why all eyes were on the Supreme Court as it\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":801,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=801","url_meta":{"origin":2680,"position":5},"title":"From Somers to Winter: Chilling Internal Whistleblowing in Private Companies","author":"Timothy Wilson","date":"April 13, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"On February 21, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion for Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers\u2014a landmark decision denying Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation protection for internal whistleblowers in private companies. Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, intending to \u201cpromote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Board member contribution"","block_context":{"text":"Board member contribution","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=55"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/2484507721_1ac6a976eb_b-1024x682.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/2484507721_1ac6a976eb_b-1024x682.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/2484507721_1ac6a976eb_b-1024x682.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2680","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/175"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2680"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2680\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2680"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2680"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2680"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}