Amicus Curiae Brief — BP p.l.c., et al., Petitioners v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
Supreme Court briefNov 23, 2020
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
No. 19-1189
================================================================================================================
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
---------------------------------♦--------------------------------B.P. PLC et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE,
Respondents.
---------------------------------♦--------------------------------On Writ Of Certiorari To The
United States Court Of Appeals
For The Fourth Circuit
---------------------------------♦--------------------------------BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
ENERGY POLICY ADVOCATES
IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONERS
---------------------------------♦--------------------------------MATTHEW D. HARDIN
Counsel of Record
1725 I Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-802-1948
Email: Matt@MatthewHardin.com
================================================================================================================
COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964
WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ......................
1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..............................
4
ARGUMENT ........................................................
6
I.
The Fourth Circuit’s Decision Defies More
Recent Holdings of This Court and of the
Seventh Circuit, and Fails to Implement
Express Statutory Amendments Enacted
by Congress................................................
6
II.
THE DECISION BELOW MUST BE REVERSED TO PREVENT FEDERAL POLICIES FROM BEING UNDERMINED AT
THE STATE LEVEL .................................. 11
III.
PUBLIC RECORDS OBTAINED BY AMICUS CURIAE ENERGY POLICY ADVOCATES AFFIRM THE IMPORTANCE
OF HEARING “CLIMATE NUISANCE”
CASES IN FEDERAL COURT .................. 16
IV.
HISTORIC CONCERNS ABOUT STATE
COURT BIAS ARE AMPLIFIED IN
CASES OF THIS TYPE, SUCH THAT
FEDERAL COURTS MUST STEP IN TO
PROTECT FEDERAL INTERESTS .......... 27
V.
CONCLUSION .......................................... 31
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
CASES
American Electric Power v. Connecticut, 131
S. Ct. 2527, 564 U.S. 410 (2011) ...................... passim
Baker v. Atl. Richfield Co., 962 F.3d 937, 2020
U.S. App. LEXIS 19097, 2020 WL 3287024 ..............7
Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.)
Inc., 965 F.3d 792, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS
21053, 50 Envtl. L. Rep. 20161, 2020 WL
3777996 .....................................................................7
Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020)...... 8, 9
Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 833 F.3d 74 (2d Cir.
2016) ........................................................................12
Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 974 F. Supp. 2d 362
(S.D.N.Y. 2014) ........................................................12
Cty. of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., 960 F.3d 586,
2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 16643, CCH Prod. Liab.
Rep. P20901, 50 Envtl. L. Rep. 20125, 2020
WL 2703701 ..............................................................7
Dalrymple v. Grand River Dam Auth., 145 F.3d
1180 (10th Cir. 1998) .................................................9
Lu Junhong v. Boeing Co., 792 F.3d 805 (7th Cir.
2015) ...................................................................... 8, 9
Massachusetts v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2020 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 93153, 50 Envtl. L. Rep. 20136,
2020 WL 2769681 ......................................................7
McMellon v. United States, 387 F.3d 329 (4th Cir.
2004) ..........................................................................8
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
Page
Murray v. Murray, 621 F.2d 103 (5th Cir. 1980) ........28
Noel v. McCain, 538 F.2d 633 (4th Cir. 1976)...............7
Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Prods. Co., No. 191818, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 34194 (1st Cir.
Oct. 29, 2020) ......................................................... 1, 4
Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 817 F.3d 457
(5th Cir. 2016)..........................................................28
Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142
(2007) .......................................................................28
Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402 (1969) ..............28
Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S.
199 (1996) ..................................................................8
STATUTES
1 V.S.A. § 317(c) ....................................................... 24
28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) .................................................28
28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) ........................................................7
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Brief of Amicus Curiae States of Maryland, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York,
Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington in Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v.
BP P.L.C., 4th Cir. Case No. 19-1644 (Doc. No.
92-1, filed 09/03/2019) ........................................... 3, 19
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
Page
Christopher Horner, “Law Enforcement for Rent”,
Competitive Enterprise Institute, August
2018 .........................................................................19
District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al.,
Superior Court of the District of Columbia,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01932 (D.D.C.), originally filed
as District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp.,
Case No. 2020 CA 002892 B (D.C. Super. Ct.),
June 25, 2020 ..........................................................23
Energy Policy Advocates v. Attorney General’s
Office (Vermont), Vermont Superior Court,
Washington County Civil Division, 173-4-20 ....... 24
Excerpt of handwritten notes of C. Frisch .................14
Geoff Dembicki, “Meet the Lawyer Trying to
Make Big Oil Pay for Climate Change,” Vice
News, December 22, 2017 .......................................20
Jonathan Adler, The Misbegotten Judicial Resistance to the Daubert Revolution, 89 Notre
Dame L. Rev. 27 (2013) ..................................... 10, 11
v
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
Page
“Michael Bloomberg Launches Beyond Carbon,
the Largest-Ever Coordinated Campaign
Against Climate Change in United States:
$500 Million Program Will Employ Advocacy,
Legal, and Electoral Strategies to Accelerate
Coal Plant Retirements, Stop Gas Rush, Win
State and Local Policy Changes and Help
Elect Candidates Who Are Climate Champions. Beyond Carbon Brings Bloomberg’s
Global Investment in Fighting Climate
Change to $1 Billion”, Press Release, Bloomberg Philanthropies ................................................20
Office of New York State AG Eric T. Schneiderman, Application to NYU State Energy & Environmental Impact Center, Special Assistant
Attorneys General Fellowship Program, September 15, 2017, p. 5. Produced as June 1,
2018, [New York] OAG record production
FOIL Request G000103-020718 ..........................22
Sean Higgins, NY atty. general sought to keep
lawyer’s role in climate change push secret,
Washington Examiner (Apr. 18, 2016) ...................20
“State AGs for Rent: Privately funded litigators
wield state police power”, Wall Street Journal, November 6, 2018 ......................................... 19
State of Connecticut v. Exxon Mobil Corporation,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01555-JCH (D. Conn.), originally filed as State v. Exxon Mobil Corp., Case
No. HHDCV206132568S (Conn. Super. Ct.) ..........23
vi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
Page
State of Delaware v. BP America Inc., et al., Case
No. N20C-09-097 (Del. Super. Ct.), September
8, 2020 .....................................................................23
State of Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute, et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-01636 (D. Minn.),
originally filed as State v. American Petroleum
Institute, Case No. 62-CV-20-3837 (Minn. Dist.
Ct.) ...........................................................................22
Susanne Rust, “California communities suing
Big Oil over climate change face a key hearing
Wednesday,” Los Angeles Times, February 5,
2020 .........................................................................31
Terry Wade, U.S. state prosecutors met with
climate groups as Exxon probes expanded,
Reuters (Apr. 15, 2016) ...........................................20
“The New Climate Litigation,” Wall Street Journal, Dec. 28, 2009 ....................................................18
Zoe Carpenter, “The Government May Already
Have the Law It Needs to Beat Big Oil,” The
Nation, July 15, 2015 ..............................................21
1
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE1
Energy Policy Advocates (“EPA”) is a nonprofit organization incorporated under the laws of Washington
State, dedicated to bringing transparency to the actions of government at all levels. As part of its mission,
EPA has obtained emails, handwritten and typewritten notes, and purported common interest agreements. These documents were released pursuant to
public records requests, and the records on their face
confess to the driving factor behind this litigation and
similar litigation that has sprung up across the Nation. These records confirm that widespread state
court “climate nuisance” litigation is part of a coordinated national campaign to obtain or influence national policy. As such, these records also inform this
Court’s inquiry into whether federal removal jurisdiction is proper. The records EPA obtained prompted it
to file its first amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit, where removal of another among
the growing number of “climate nuisance” lawsuits
filed by governmental entities seeking billions of dollars from private parties was until recently pending,2
then another in this Court at the petition stage.3 Those
1
The parties have consented to this filing. No counsel for a
party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no counsel or
party made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. No person other than Amicus
Curiae, its members, or its counsel made a monetary contribution
to its preparation or submission.
2
See Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Prods. Co., No. 19-1818, 2020
U.S. App. LEXIS 34194 (1st Cir. Oct. 29, 2020).
3
See Amicus Brief of Energy Policy Advocates filed in this
matter on April 30, 2020.
2
briefs revealed public records of communications
among the network organizing, promoting and filing
a nationwide quilt of state-court “climate nuisance”
litigation. These included, inter alia, two sets of notes
each recording the assertion by an official with the
governmental plaintiff in the First Circuit case, the
State of Rhode Island, that the State’s climate nuisance litigation seeks to obtain a “sustainable funding
stream” to underwrite that State’s spending ambitions,
after the state’s legislature declined to provide the desired funds, and emphasizing the desire to proceed in
state court. Rhode Island’s confession was made at a
meeting attended by “cabinet”-level representatives of
numerous state governments from across the nation,
including a representative from Maryland. Other public records obtained by Amicus EPA quite tellingly reveal how a network of privately-hired attorneys were
placed in state offices of the attorney general and
tasked with assisting litigation which advances “clean
energy, climate change, and environmental issues of
regional or national importance, such as those matters
that cross jurisdictional boundaries or have nationwide applicability.”4 Moreover, these records reveal
these attorneys were tasked with the effort to keep
4
August 25, 2017 email from the “State Energy & Environmental Impact Center” Director David Hayes to staff from attorneys general offices of California, Connecticut, Delaware, District
of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington
State, Subject: State Energy & Environmental Impact Center.
Available at https://climatelitigationwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/
2018/08/FN-3-Organic-NYU-Hayes-email-to-OAGs-copy.pdf.
3
such “nuisance” litigation in state court (including in
the matter below).5
Indeed, Amicus EPA has obtained a document
from the litigant in the First Circuit, the State of
Rhode Island, purporting a legal privilege exists on
supposedly local public nuisance litigation among
these same attorneys general – from Vermont and
Massachusetts, across to Minnesota and New Mexico,
and over to California and Washington State “and any
other state, municipality, or other governmental entity
that completes the attached Addendum”6 – and that
the privilege extends to counsel for any of the parties
to the nuisance litigation, on the basis of a claimed
“common legal interest.” Such coordination on, and
purported “common interest in ensuring the proper application of the federal and/or state common law of
public nuisance arising from the effects of climate
change, including sea level rise,” which litigation purports to raise only state causes of action proves far too
much. Amicus EPA respectfully submits that the
courts must take these parties at their word and consider the many admissions about the nature of their
litigation campaign which have been obtained by Amicus EPA. These records reveal an attempt to raise governmental revenues and obtain national policies, both
outside the democratic process.
5
See Brief of Amicus Curiae States of Maryland, California,
Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington in Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP
P.L.C., 4th Cir. Case No. 19-1644 (Doc. No. 92-1, filed 09/03/2019).
6
See fn. 4, supra.
4
In the First Circuit litigation, numerous parties
relied upon the Fourth Circuit’s decision in the instant
matter, and parties to the First Circuit litigation addressed the Fourth Circuit’s opinion below in letters of
supplemental authority. Subsequently, the First Circuit issued an opinion that substantially echoes the decision of the Fourth Circuit in the case at bar, and the
Fourth Circuit’s opinion undermines federal primacy
on interstate and even international climate policies.7
Because EPA has obtained records which affirm the intention to influence national policy but also demonstrate improper objectives at the heart of the veritable
tsunami of state-court “climate nuisance” lawsuits,
such as the one filed by Baltimore in the instant matter, and which records show the emphasis among
peers on the strategy of using state courts for actions
with national policy implications, EPA is keenly interested in this case and previously asked this Court to
grant certiorari to address the proper relationship
between the state and federal court systems. At this
juncture, EPA again appears as an amicus to argue
for reversal.
---------------------------------♦---------------------------------
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
As important as climate policy is to both state and
federal governments, equally and arguably more important is the principle that it is not the role of the
courts to make policy judgments. Yet a desire among
7
Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Prods. Co., No. 19-1818, 2020 U.S.
App. LEXIS 34194 (1st Cir. Oct. 29, 2020)
5
some litigants to influence or obtain preferred policies
on interstate – and even international – energy and
environmental policy matters via state court litigation
has led to the case at bar and dozens of other cases that
have sprung up across the Nation.
This Court held in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527, 2539, 564 U.S. 410, 426 (2011)
that “the federal courts would have no warrant to employ the federal common law of nuisance to upset”
agency regulation of carbon dioxide. But rather than
heed the American Electric Power opinion’s warnings
that federal policy decisions are to be made by Congress
or by federal agencies exercising properly delegated authority, certain litigants have instead attempted to end
run that holding by seeking to create policy in state,
rather than federal, courts. Despite the new wave of
creative pleading being used to argue that state court
jurisdiction exists for claims that are substantively identical to foreclosed theories based on the federal common
law of nuisance, such claims are nothing short of an attempted end run around this Court’s clear precedents.
Although post-American Electric Power litigants
cleverly avoid citing claims under federal statutes in
the complaints now proliferating in state courts, the
gravamen of the complaint at issue in this case and in
each of the cavalcade of similar cases filed by the
same counsel is inherently focused on redress of supposed interstate and international harms from global
burning of fossil fuels. Unsurprisingly, state court litigants also seek abatement of perceived environmental
harms. See Appendix at p. 182. As the petitioners argue in their brief, however, “respondent’s claims do not
6
just implicate federal-law issues – they inherently are
federal claims, arising under federal law. No state law
exists in this area for respondent to invoke.” Brief of
the Petitioners at p. 43.
Allowing the opinion below to stand will cause
mischief in state courts across the Nation as litigants
unhappy with Congressional policy (or inaction) and
the fora provided by federal law to challenge such policy are incentivized to “shop around” in the thousands
of state trial courts for the remedy they seek. Perhaps
even more alarming than creating an incentive for forum shopping, however, the decision below also encourages the circuit courts to maintain their unique
precedents even when the foundations for such precedents have been expressly overturned by Congress or
eroded by the decisions of this Court. This Court
should prevent litigants from seeking the most favorable forum to obtain political and policy ends by judicial
means, and it should remind the circuit courts that
rote recitation of their own precedents is no substitute
for textual analysis of duly-enacted statutes.
---------------------------------♦---------------------------------
ARGUMENT
I.
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION DEFIES
MORE RECENT HOLDINGS OF THIS COURT
AND OF THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, AND FAILS
TO IMPLEMENT EXPRESS STATUTORY
AMENDMENTS ENACTED BY CONGRESS.
The decision below, which is published and has the
potential to shape the law for years to come, is based
7
on a series of precedents unique to the Fourth Circuit,
many of which contradict more recent holdings of this
Court and even statutory changes enacted by Congress. Unfortunately, and despite its unique foundations, the Fourth Circuit’s decision has already been
cited by the First Circuit and by District Courts in the
Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits.8 The Fourth Circuit’s reliance on its own, idiosyncratic precedents led
to a result that is in conflict with the holdings of numerous other courts. Unfortunately, it now appears
that the Fourth Circuit’s decision, despite its infirmities, is being exported for use nationwide.
The Fourth Circuit’s decision below (hereinafter
“Baltimore”), while published only this year, has its
foundations in a holding from the 1970s that has
foundered in changing legal seas since then, and was
implicitly swamped by a holding of this Court twenty
years ago. That Fourth Circuit opinion, Noel v. McCain,
538 F.2d 633 (4th Cir. 1976), based on 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(d) as that statute read during the Ford Administration, held that remand orders are essentially unreviewable unless they are based on very narrow
statutory grounds. Although stare decisis is no doubt
an important legal principle, in this case the Fourth
8
Massachusetts v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
93153, 50 Envtl. L. Rep. 20136, 2020 WL 2769681, Baker v. Atl.
Richfield Co., 962 F.3d 937, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 19097, 2020
WL 3287024, Cty. of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., 960 F.3d 586,
2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 16643, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P20901, 50
Envtl. L. Rep. 20125, 2020 WL 2703701, Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v.
Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., 965 F.3d 792, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS
21053, 50 Envtl. L. Rep. 20161, 2020 WL 3777996
8
Circuit’s adherence to its own precedents has placed it
at odds with both the text of the statute as it reads
today, and with the intervening decisions of both the
Seventh Circuit and this Court interpreting identical
statutory language.
The Fourth Circuit’s decision below acknowledges
that this Court subsequently interpreted the same
statutory language differently in Yamaha Motor Corp.,
U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199 (1996). The Fourth Circuit even acknowledged that the Yamaha decision was
“entirely textual.” Baltimore, 952 F.3d at 460. Nevertheless, the Fourth Circuit panel held that it could not
say its Noel decision was abrogated and held that “Noel
remains binding precedent in this Circuit.” Id. at 461.
Although it is the practice of federal circuit court panels in the Fourth Circuit not to overrule the precedents
of a prior panel, it is the role of this Court to step in to
ensure circuit courts are implementing statutes as
written rather than relying on decades-old precedents
that deviate from the current text. Compare McMellon
v. United States, 387 F.3d 329, 332 (4th Cir. 2004) (collecting cases) with Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct.
1731, 1737 (2020) (“When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written
word is the law”).
The Fourth Circuit’s reliance on Noel also compelled it to reject the 7th Circuit’s expressly textual
conclusion relating to the same statute and the same
language about the reviewability of district court orders on remand in Lu Junhong v. Boeing Co., 792 F.3d
9
805, 810-13 (7th Cir. 2015). Even assuming, arguendo,
that the Fourth Circuit properly decided the Noel case
in 1976, its continued reliance on Noel is no longer
appropriate. This Court should step in to ensure the
circuit courts are applying the “express terms of the
statute” rather than “extratextual considerations”
such as their own prior precedents.
Precedent isn’t the only thing that has changed
since the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion in Noel,
however. Relevant statutory law has also changed: the
Removal Clarification Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-51,
125 Stat. 545, made plain the Congressional intent to
“clarify and improve certain provisions relating to the
removal of litigation against Federal officers or agencies to Federal courts.” Although the circuit courts
once perceived a “strong congressional policy against
review of remand orders,” Dalrymple v. Grand River
Dam Auth., 145 F.3d 1180, 1185, fn. 8 (10th Cir. 1998),
Congress has now expressly modified the relevant statutory text to broaden reviewability in the Removal
Clarification Act. As this Court recognized in Bostock,
the direction “Congress has moved” is a relevant consideration in interpreting the text of a statute. Bostock
v. Clayton Cty., 140 S. Ct. at 1739. Reliance on precedents which pre-date Congress’s current intent to
broaden reviewability of remand orders thus put the
Fourth Circuit in the unique position of thwarting, rather than implementing, legislative directives.
Continued reliance by the lower courts on precedents that have been overruled by this Court or supplanted by changes in relevant law is nothing new. As
10
Jonathan Adler wrote in The Misbegotten Judicial Resistance to the Daubert Revolution, 89 Notre Dame L.
Rev. 27, 52 (2013), lower federal courts “resurrected the
ghost” of long superseded evidentiary precedents rather than comply with this Court’s Daubert trilogy of
cases. Those same lower courts often attempt to evade
the binding presents of this Court by “neglecting not
just the text” of amended statutory or other law, but
also this Court’s precedents. Id. at 55. And, Professor
Adler noted, the impulse to defy this Court’s precedents has been strongest “when a case involves issues
on the frontier of scientific knowledge.” Id. at 70. Perhaps because “public nuisance law, like common law
generally, adapts to changing scientific and factual circumstances,” Am. Elec. Power Co., 564 U.S. at 423, it
appears that history is now repeating itself as the
lower courts now “resurrect the ghost” of state law
nuisance claims that were long ago pre-empted by the
comprehensive federal regulatory scheme, which this
Court recognized in American Electric Power similarly
displaced federal common law claims.
Because the Fourth Circuit’s decision below is
based on foundations that Congress, other federal
courts and this Court have steadily eroded since the
Fourth Circuit issued the authority on which Baltimore rests, this Court must reverse the opinion below.
This Court, the Seventh Circuit, and Congress itself
have all spoken more recently, and it is the proper role
of this Court to ensure its own precedents and recent
Congressional intent govern disputes such as the
one at bar, rather than implicitly abrogated circuit
11
precedents from the 1970s. The innovative legal theories brought by the Plaintiffs in this case – and their
recitation of grave impending harms to all mankind if
climate change is not abated by judicial fiat in the state
courts – only serves to further highlight the need to
decide the matter based on current laws this Court
declared. Indeed, the reticence of lower federal courts
to “exercise their gatekeeping responsibilities when a
case involves issues on the frontier of scientific
knowledge” only heightens the need for this Court to
enforce its own precedents. See Adler, 89 Notre Dame
L. Rev. at 70.
II.
THE DECISION BELOW MUST BE REVERSED TO PREVENT FEDERAL POLICIES FROM BEING UNDERMINED AT THE
STATE LEVEL.
This suit is but one of dozens of similar suits that
have been filed all over the country. A broad and growing collection of U.S. cities, states and counties including the State of Rhode Island, City and County of
Boulder County (CO), City and County of Honolulu
(HI), City of New York (NY), Marin, San Mateo and
Santa Cruz Counties (CA), the cities of Imperial Beach,
Oakland, Richmond, San Francisco, San Mateo, and
Santa Cruz (CA), and King County (WA), among others
have filed similar claims against similar and generally
the same defendants alleging similar causes of action
which allegedly arise under state law. The rapid proliferation of state court litigation involving the same
legal theories, the same defendants, and usually the
12
same plaintiff ’s counsel has the unfortunate effect of
driving up litigation costs and complicating the eventual resolution of claims that are inevitably national
or international in scope. Worse, though, the continual
filing of new litigation in new forums has made the litigation itself a penalty for politically disfavored or targeted defendants and a form of regulatory burden
imposed by state and local governments even absent
a final judgment on the merits. As at least one court
has previously noted, multi-front litigation raises important concerns about the motivations of litigants.
Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 974 F. Supp. 2d 362, 475
(S.D.N.Y. 2014) (“The point of the multi-front strategy
thus was to leverage the expense, risks, and burden to
[defendant] of defending itself in multiple jurisdictions
to achieve a swift recovery, most likely by precipitating
a settlement.”), later upheld at Chevron Corp. v.
Donziger, 833 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2016).
The explosion in “climate” cases filed in state court
seeks many hundreds of billions of dollars from private
parties, and seeks to enlist the defendants as advocates in pressing for the plaintiffs’ and their partners’
desired federal policies under the guise of courtordered “abatement” of environmental nuisances. Records obtained by Amicus Energy Policy Advocates also
show the attempt to use state court systems to obtain
governmental revenues only began after attempts to
raise revenue or enact preferred environmental policies failed through the appropriate, political process.
Further demonstrating the impropriety of the use of
state court litigation to seek remedies that have
13
already been rejected by the federal courts, EPA has
obtained emails and handwritten and typewritten
notes under public records requests, discussed below,
that illustrate the danger of allowing state courts to
interfere in lawful interstate commerce conducted under the regulatory auspices of the federal government.
Key among these public records are two sets of notes
which record the assertion by a senior State of Rhode
Island official that the objective of that state’s litigation – brought by the same counsel as Baltimore’s case
– was to obtain a “sustainable funding stream” for the
State’s spending ambitions, in the face of a legislature
that does not share the executive’s priorities.
The records Amicus EPA has obtained corroborate
that a Rhode Island official emphasized the importance of using state courts to obtain funding denied
by the Rhode Island legislature. It thus appears from
public records that states are attempting not only to
evade the federal statutory and regulatory framework
in place for addressing climate issues by suing in
state court, but may also be using state courts to evade
policy restrictions imposed by state legislatures themselves. Other records EPA has obtained, more fully set
forth below, record the plaintiff ’s legal counsel’s team,
at least some of whom also represent the City of Baltimore in this litigation, lobbying governmental officials
to file suit in the “more advantageous venue for these
cases,” which plaintiffs in the instant case and in the
14
dozens of cases like it confess is to be had in state
courts.9
The public records obtained through state open
records laws by Amicus EPA show that a Rhode Island
“cabinet”-level official confided to peers that the Ocean
State’s elected representatives are insufficiently
moved by the plaintiff ’s requests to enact laws raising
the revenues the State’s executive desires; and that
the Executive Branch is thus “looking for [a] sustainable funding stream.”10 Such a court-ordered funding
stream, the records reflect, is the apparent objective of
the onslaught of complaints in which states and municipalities are “suing big oil” for a “Priority – sustainable funding stream.” Because savvy counsel realize
that the federal courts closed the door to federal nuisance suits in American Electric Power, 564 U.S. 410
(2011), the new wave of litigants have attempted to
evade the precedents of this Court by emphasizing
the “state court” litigation strategy. But dressing up
quintessentially federal or even international claims
9
https://climatelitigationwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/
03/GSPlatt-explains-seeks-to-encourage-Fort-Lauderdale-postJudge-Alsop-Opinion.pdf. While recruiting Fort Lauderdale to file
a climate nuisance action similar to the instant matter, Platt offered “context for Dean and Alain’s consideration” in an email to
Mayor Dean Trantalis, City Attorney Boileau, and Mayor’s Chief
of Staff Scott Wyman. This was specifically in response to U.S.
District Judge Alsup’s June 2018 opinion dismissing certain municipalities’ “climate nuisance” litigation on the grounds that the
courts were not the proper place to deal with such global issues.
10
Excerpt of handwritten notes of C. Frisch, located at
https://climatelitigationwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/
Carla-Frisch-handwritten-notes-EPA_ CORA1505.pdf.
15
in supposed state-law garb cannot change the nature
of this Court’s American Electric Power holding that
Congress has entrusted “the complex balancing of an
environmental benefit that is potentially achievable,
the Nation’s energy needs, and the possibility of economic disruption, to the Environmental Protection
Agency” – not to state Courts and creative plaintiff ’s
lawyers.
The records EPA has obtained, including a First
Circuit Plaintiff ’s confession and other records which
put this litigation in context as part of a broader national campaign, leave little doubt that the growing
wave of state court “climate nuisance” litigation seeks
at least two impermissible objectives: First, this type
of litigation seeks to use (state) courts to effectively
create federal energy and environmental policy. Second,
in addition to using litigation to thwart the political
process that has denied state and municipal plaintiffs
their desired policies, it seeks to use litigation to raise
revenues that the plaintiffs are unwilling to raise
through taxation.
These public records provide strong impetus to
acknowledge, as a formal matter, that this “climate
nuisance” litigation campaign is an impermissible use
of the courts, seeking the most favorable forum to obtain political ends by judicial means and that when
filed such suits must be litigated (and almost inexorably dismissed) in federal court.
16
III. PUBLIC RECORDS OBTAINED BY AMICUS
CURIAE ENERGY POLICY ADVOCATES
AFFIRM THE IMPORTANCE OF HEARING
“CLIMATE NUISANCE” CASES IN FEDERAL COURT.
Amicus EPA has obtained public records from
Colorado State University’s Center for a New Energy
Economy (“CNEE”) under the Colorado Open Records
Act (“CORA”), which EPA previously brought to this
Court’s attention in an earlier amicus brief at the petition stage. Another of EPA’s transparency efforts illuminated a startling campaign by private donors and
activists to use private funds to hire and place attorneys in state law enforcement offices to pursue favored policies (and disfavored targets) in the state
courts. EPA also obtained two agreements purporting
a common legal interest among numerous state attorneys general on the nationwide spate of climate nuisance litigation, including that filed by the City of
Baltimore, in which attorneys general filed as amici in
the Fourth Circuit with the assistance of those privately hired attorneys. These agreements also purport
to extend privilege to all municipal climate nuisance
plaintiffs. These records affirm the coordinated national campaign that such suits represent, and the importance of permitting removal of claims such as those
brought by Baltimore to federal court.
The records EPA obtained from Colorado State
University pertain to a two-day meeting in July 2019
hosted by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (“RBF”). The
handwritten notes were prepared by attendee Carla
17
Frisch of the Rocky Mountain Institute (“RMI”), and
typewritten corroborating notes of attendee Katie
McCormack of the Energy Foundation. The records reveal that Rhode Island – one of the plaintiffs in a similar suit brought by the same counsel that represents
Baltimore in this Court – emphasized a state court
strategy for litigation the express purpose of which,
as set forth in the notes, is improper. Rhode Island’s
Executive Branch sought policies that the legislature
of Rhode Island “doesn’t care” about, including a “sustainable funding stream” outside the normal process of
taxation.
The notes EPA obtained contemporaneously record
the comments of Rhode Island’s Director of Environmental Management, Janet Coit, discussing Rhode
Island’s entry in this litigation campaign, alongside
various other states and municipalities. The records
show RMI’s Frisch recorded Director Coit speaking to
this litigation. Ms. Frisch recorded Director Coit as
saying, about its suit:
RI – Gen Assembly D but doesn’t care on
env/climate looking for sustainable funding
stream suing big oil for RI damages in state court
As noted by Amicus EPA in its petition stage brief,
the typewritten notes repeat these claims. These notes
suggest the litigation resulted from the conclusion that
the Rhode Island legislature was not persuaded of the
claims set forth by that State in its own lawsuit. With
this manifestation that in the executive’s mind the
legislature “doesn’t care”, the State – or at least its
18
Executive Branch – turned to the courts to pursue revenue-raising measures and add to the litigation campaign that plaintiffs admit is about coercing the
targets of the litigation to cooperate as advocates for
certain federal policies.
These notes affirm that although the first generation of “climate nuisance” suits fell flat in federal court,
and ultimately were terminated by this Court in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527,
2539, 564 U.S. 410, 426 (2011), the litigants in those
cases and their boosters continue to pursue an almost
identical strategy in the federal courts and, as these
records show, with the same national policy objective
admitted to by the state attorney general who brought
American Electric Power, of “trying to compel
measures that will stem global warming regardless of
what happens in the legislature.”11
First, the new generation of climate nuisance
suits, just like its predecessor, ask the courts to substitute their authority for that of the political branches of
government on matters of policy. Second, such suits
seek billions of dollars in revenues for ambitious political spending programs, as well as distribution to preferred constituencies, which would otherwise be raised
in the form of taxation by politically accountable actors
in the various legislative bodies.
11
“My hope is that the court case will provide a powerful incentive for polluters to be reasonable and come to the table. We’re
trying to compel measures that will stem global warming regardless of what happens in the Legislature.” “The New Climate Litigation,” Wall Street Journal, Dec. 28, 2009.
19
Other public records obtained by Amicus EPA reveal how a network of privately-hired attorneys placed
in state attorneys general offices expressly to work on
matters of national impact have been tasked with assisting such municipal litigation, and specifically with
keeping such litigation in state court (including in the
matter at bar here).12
The State Energy & Environmental Impact Center (“SEEIC”) at the New York University School of
Law, funded by grants from the Bloomberg Family
Foundation, hires outside lawyers who are then “seconded” to work in state Offices of the Attorney General on projects of interest to the donor of regional or
national importance.13 As former presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg’s family foundation openly –
indeed aggressively – concedes, he and it have long
sought policy outcomes in the name of “climate change”
calculated even to drive particular industries out of
12
See Brief of Amicus Curiae States of Maryland, California,
Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington in Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v.
BP P.L.C., 4th Cir. Case No. 19-1644 (Doc. No. 92-1, filed September 3, 2019) (signed by privately hired and “seconded” “Special
Assistant Attorneys General” Joshua M. Segal and Steve J. Goldstein).
13
See “State AGs for Rent: Privately funded litigators
wield state police power”, Wall Street Journal, November 6, 2018,
https://www.wsj.com/articles/state-ags-for-rent-1541549567. For a
deeper examination of the record of this collaboration, see also,
Christopher Horner, “Law Enforcement for Rent”, Competitive
Enterprise Institute, August 2018, https://cei.org/sites/default/
files/Christopher%20Horner%20-%20Law%20Enforcement%20for
%20Rent%20with%20Appendix.pdf.
20
the national economy.14 Similarly, tort firms revealed
as recruiting and coordinating closely on climate nuisance litigation campaigns with the state AG offices
favored by Bloomberg’s resources15 have confessed not
only that their efforts could “bring down the fossil fuel
companies”16 but also that climate tort litigation is
14
See, e.g., “Michael Bloomberg Launches Beyond Carbon, the
Largest-Ever Coordinated Campaign Against Climate Change
in United States: $500 Million Program Will Employ Advocacy,
Legal, and Electoral Strategies to Accelerate Coal Plant Retirements, Stop Gas Rush, Win State and Local Policy Changes and
Help Elect Candidates Who Are Climate Champions. Beyond Carbon Brings Bloomberg’s Global Investment in Fighting Climate
Change to $1 Billion”, Press Release, Bloomberg Philanthropies,
https://www.beyondcarbon.org/news/michael-bloomberg-launchesbeyond-carbon-largest-ever-coordinated-campaign-climate-changeunited-states/, viewed November 19, 2019. Two of the four priorities
are “Win state and local policy changes” and “Help elect climate
champions.” The Bloomberg Family Foundation’s public IRS
Form 990 for 2018 described the 2018 tranche of $2.8 million for
the SEEIC, in toto, as “To support the effort to move the U.S. beyond coal.” Part XV Grants and contributions paid through the
year. Available at https://govoversight.org/wp-content/uploads/
2020/11/Bloomberg-FF-2018-990.pdf.
15
See, e.g., Sean Higgins, NY atty. general sought to keep
lawyer’s role in climate change push secret, Washington Examiner
(Apr. 18, 2016), http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ny-atty-generalsought-to-keep-lawyers-role-in-climate-change-push-secret/article/
2588874; Terry Wade, U.S. state prosecutors met with climate
groups as Exxon probes expanded, Reuters (Apr. 15, 2016),
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxonmobil-states/u-s-stateprosecutors-met-with-climate-groups-as-exxon-probes-expandedidUSKCN0XC2U2.
16
Geoff Dembicki, “Meet the Lawyer Trying to Make Big Oil
Pay for Climate Change,” Vice News, December 22, 2017,
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43qw3j/meet-the-lawyer-tryingto-make-big-oil-pay-for-climate-change.
21
being used against energy interests as a result of the
democratic process denying climate activists what
they demand.17 This is consistent with the acknowledgement by an official with one municipal nuisance
plaintiff, the City of Boulder, Colorado, obtained by
Amicus EPA, echoing then-Attorney General Blumenthal’s confession, noted supra, in an email that “the
pressure of litigation could also lead companies . . . to
work with lawmakers on a deal” about climate policies.18
Now, state attorneys general promise in applications for funding from SEEIC (and indirectly from
Bloomberg philanthropies) that they will apply privately hired attorneys provided to them by the
Bloomberg program to pursue “clean energy, climate
change or environmental issues of national or regional
17
Tort lawyer Matt Pawa, who brought many of the first “climate nuisance” suits and who originally recruited attorneys general to the cause of targeting the parties he was suing, was quoted
in The Nation as saying “I’ve been hearing for twelve years or more
that legislation is right around the corner that’s going to solve the
global-warming problem, and that litigation is too long, difficult,
and arduous a path. . . . Legislation is going nowhere, so litigation
could potentially play an important role.” Zoe Carpenter, “The
Government May Already Have the Law It Needs to Beat Big
Oil,” The Nation, July 15, 2015, https://www.thenation.com/
article/the-government-may-already-have-the-law-it-needs-to-beatbig-oil/.
18
January 5, 2018 email from Boulder Chief Sustainability
& Resilience officer Jonathan Koehn to Alex Burness of the Boulder Daily Camera, Subject: RE: Follow-up to council discussion.
Available at https://climatelitigationwatch.org/boulder-officialclimate-litigation-is-tool-to-make-industry-bend-a-knee/.
22
importance.”19 Several of these state attorneys general
indicated a desire to pursue certain industries.20 By
chance, after receiving these “Special Assistant Attorneys General,” the states’ posture changed to claim
that they were filing purely local nuisance litigation
and other litigation involving “climate”-related consumer fraud under state or local statutes all in state or
other local courts.21
19
Office of New York State AG Eric T. Schneiderman, Application to NYU State Energy & Environmental Impact Center,
Special Assistant Attorneys General Fellowship Program, September 15, 2017, p. 5. Produced as June 1, 2018, [New York] OAG
record production FOIL Request G000103-020718, available at
https://climatelitigationwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/
FN-105-NY-OAG-application-for-Bloomberg-SAAGs-copy.pdf ;
Maryland’s Attorney General, who tasked his “SAAGs” with supporting the Baltimore litigation at issue in this matter, noted the
same purpose for these privately hired attorneys (application
available at https://climatelitigationwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/
2019/10/Exhibit-1-MD-OAG-NYU-application-as-provided-to-GAOcopy.pdf ), and Minnesota, who then tasked his two “SAAGs” with
filing a purportedly local consumer fraud suit against energy companies in the name of climate change.
20
See Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota and New York
applications for “SAAGs” at https://climatelitigationwatch.org/
wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Exhibit-1-MD-OAG-NYU-applicationas-provided-to-GAO-copy.pdf, https://climatelitigationwatch.org/
wp-content/uploads/2019/10/MA-AG-NYU-Application.pdf, https://
climatelitigationwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/MN-OAGNYU-Application.pdf, and https://climatelitigationwatch.org/
wp-content/uploads/2019/12/NY-OAG-application-for-BloombergSAAGs.pdf, respectively.
21
See, e.g., State of Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute, et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-01636 (D. Minn.), originally filed as
State v. American Petroleum Institute, Case No. 62-CV-20-3837
(Minn. Dist. Ct.), https://climatelitigationwatch.org/wp-content/
23
This alarming practice is underway in this very
matter.22 In September 2019, “SAAGs” Joshua Segal
and Steven J. Goldstein filed a 37 page amicus brief
supporting the Mayor of Baltimore’s lawsuit “seeking
to hold 26 fossil fuel companies liable for injuries resulting from climate change.”23
uploads/2020/09/ExxonKochAPI_Complaint.pdf (see also, e.g.,
“Bloomberg-Provided Attorneys File Next AG ‘Climate’ Suit
in Minnesota,” ClimateLitigationWatch.org, June 24, 2020,
https://climatelitigationwatch.org/bloomberg-provided-attorneysfile-next-ag-climate-suit-in-minnesota/); State of Connecticut v.
Exxon Mobil Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-01555-JCH (D. Conn.),
originally filed as State v. Exxon Mobil Corp., Case No.
HHDCV206132568S (Conn. Super. Ct.), September 14, 2020,
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/AG/State-v-Exxon-Mobil---SignedComplaint.pdf; State of Delaware v. BP America Inc., et al., Case
No. N20C-09-097 (Del. Super. Ct.), September 8, 2020, https://
climatelitigationwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2020-0909-Delaware-Final-Complaint.pdf; District of Columbia v. Exxon
Mobil Corp., et al., Superior Court of the District of Columbia,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01932 (D.D.C.), originally filed as District of
Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp., Case No. 2020 CA 002892 B (D.C.
Super. Ct.), June 25, 2020, https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/
2020-06/DC-v-Exxon-BP-Chevron-Shell-Filed-Complaint.pdf.
22
https://www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/News%20Documents/
090319_Baltimore_climate_amicus.pdf, in Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. BP, P.L.C. et al, Case No. 19-1644, Dkt. No. 92-1
(4th Cir. Sept. 3, 2019).
23
Notably, other OAG “Applications” to the Bloomberg Center released to the public expressly name supporting the tort litigation campaign against private energy companies as a use to
which they would put Bloomberg Center-funded attorneys. The
heavily redacted application by Maryland AG Brian Frosh may
have indicated it would do so, as well, although the public has no
way of knowing this in the face of these redactions.
24
Confirming the use of municipal “climate nuisance” litigation as a substitute for national policymaking through the proper democratic process,
Amicus EPA has obtained a document from the First
Circuit public nuisance plaintiff, the State of Rhode Island, purporting a “common legal interest” among attorneys general nationwide – in this very, supposedly
local public nuisance litigation (among many others
enumerated) – with signatories from Vermont and
Massachusetts, across to Minnesota and New Mexico,
and over to California and Washington State, and “any
other State, municipality, or other governmental entity
that completes the attached Addendum.”24 The Vermont Attorney General’s Office, less inclined to allow
this fact out into the public, describes the pact in a
privilege log obtained by Amicus EPA in open records
litigation, as “[t]he ‘Climate Change CA’ ”, which “notes
that such privileged and confidential exchange will
allow for the parties’ claims and defenses to be thoroughly investigated and prepared and efficient joint
participation in the Climate Change Litigation to be
developed, including the development of litigation
strategy and the preparation of legal briefs.”25
24
April 2018 “Confidentiality Agreement Regarding Participation in Climate Change Public Nuisance Litigation”, which
phrase is repeated in a December 2019 amendment to same, both
available at https://climatelitigationwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/
2020/11/Climate-Change-CA-with-12.2019-amendment.pdf.
25
Entry AGO0085-AGO0119 in Defendant’s First Amended
Index of Withheld Documents as Exempt from Public Inspection
and Copying Pursuant to 1 V.S.A. § 317(c), June 26, 2020, Energy
Policy Advocates v. Attorney General’s Office (Vermont), Vermont
25
The pacts that Amicus EPA has obtained, signed
by many of the attorneys general who filed in the
matter below seeking to keep this matter in the state
courts, itself declares that privilege exists from a common legal interest in “the Litigation”, and that, “The
Litigation includes, [REDACTED], City of Oakland,
et al. v. BP P.L.C. et al., City and County of San Francisco, et al. v. BP PLC., et al., and San Mateo v. Chevron
Corp., [REDACTED].” (citations omitted).
Notably about these redactions, and further supporting the body of evidence that these suits are a coordinated national campaign to obtain or influence
federal policy, as the Court can see from these documents the context suggests these surely are expansive
phrases such as “but not limited to”, and “or any similar cases”, respectively.26
The next sentence reads, “The Parties to this
Agreement have a common interest in ensuring the
proper application of the federal and/or state common
law arising from the effects of climate change.” Immediately thereafter, nearly seven lines of text describing
further what this common legal interest is are obscured from public scrutiny behind still more blocks of
Superior Court, Washington County Civil Division, 173-4-20,
available at https://climatelitigationwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/
2020/11/2020-06-26-EPA-v-Vt-AGO-Docket-173-4-20-1st-Am-VaughnIndex.pdf.
26
Their withholding, while improper and the subject to further records litigation, is just as surely because revelation of the
lack of a sufficiently narrow common legal interest dooms the
claimed privilege.
26
black ink. Context suggests that this, too, broadly describes other components of this national campaign.
Further, and despite this effort at claiming a common legal interest nationwide in any purportedly local
“nuisance” litigation, in December 2019 the parties
amended this purported shield from public scrutiny of
their work to add to the litany of The Litigation,
“Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c. (Md.
Cir. Ct. 24-C-18-004219 and D. Md. 18-02357)”, as well
as City of New York v. BP p.l.c., King County v. BP p.l.c.
“and/or Board of County Commissioners of Boulder
County, et al., v. Suncor Energy, et al.”27
This suit and those like it, admittedly by these
parties and apparently by all counsel to all such plaintiffs, are parts of a coordinated nationwide effort to
raise “funding streams” and influence federal policies
which have eluded the plaintiffs through the proper
democratic processes.
This Court made clear in American Electric Power
that the federal regulatory regime for pollutants foreclosed any federal common law remedy arising out of
purported climate harms. Although the reasoning behind the American Electric Power opinion necessarily
implies that it is the business of Congress to strike the
appropriate balances and compromises between energy and environmental needs – and that it has done
27
April 2018 and amended, December 2019 versions, obtained from the Rhode Island Office of the Attorney General,
available at https://climatelitigationwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/
2020/11/Climate-Change-CA-with-12.2019-amendment.pdf.
27
so by delegating broad power to the Environmental
Protection Agency – the public records Amicus EPA
has obtained reveal the extraordinary efforts of various states and municipalities (and their partners in
litigation) to evade American Electric Power. This litigation cannot become a tool empowering private litigants to end industries they have targeted for
extinction, or to make such industries a “golden goose.”
State Court litigation cannot become the weapon at
hand to make the process of litigation itself a penalty
for federally regulated industries. This Court should
reaffirm that interstate pollution is a matter for the
U.S. Congress to address, and that state courts are as
ill-suited to strike policy compromises as the federal
courts. Lastly, this Court should ensure that state
court litigation does not become a substitute for the
proper, authorized means of obtaining “funding
streams” for state governments when elected representatives decline to impose taxes and spending for a
particular agenda.
These cases are not proper vehicles for their desired ends, but are the proper subject of federal officer
removal jurisdiction.
IV. HISTORIC CONCERNS ABOUT STATE
COURT BIAS ARE AMPLIFIED IN CASES
OF THIS TYPE, SUCH THAT FEDERAL
COURTS MUST STEP IN TO PROTECT
FEDERAL INTERESTS.
Federal Officer Removal jurisdiction exists because of “historic concern about state court bias.”
28
Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 817 F.3d 457, 461
(5th Cir. 2016). This Court has expressed concern that
when state courts are empowered to judge federal policy or federal officials, local biases or prejudice can infect the judicial process. “State-court proceedings may
reflect ‘local prejudice’ against unpopular federal laws
or federal officials.” Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551
U.S. 142, 150 (2007). Perhaps because bias – whether
real or perceived – is so corrosive to the judicial process, and because combatting such bias and instilling
confidence in the neutrality of the courts is the policy
goal behind federal officer removal, this Court has cautioned against “narrow, grudging interpretation” of
§ 1442(a)(1). Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 407
(1969). Nevertheless, and although “[t]he removal statute is an incident of federal supremacy,” Murray v.
Murray, 621 F.2d 103, 106 (5th Cir. 1980), the decision
below and those from other federal circuits have
worked to undermine federal supremacy and subject
federal energy and environmental policy to the whims
of local tribunals.
The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, and
similar plaintiffs in litigation brought by the same
counsel, are engaged in a campaign through the courts
to overturn “unpopular federal laws.” Rather than recognizing the Constitution and federal laws as supreme
and working within the regulatory framework for cooperative federalism that this Court recognized in
American Electric Power, governmental “climate nuisance” plaintiffs are applying a “narrow, grudging” interpretation of the removal statute to evade the
29
enforcement of federal law in a federal forum, preferring instead to seek their remedy in the greener pastures that they believe state courts will provide.
It is hard to imagine a more striking case where
fear of state court bias could be a concern than is presented in the instant matter and similar cases unfolding across the nation. Indeed, the hope for state court
bias in these cases is at play, as shown in records obtained by Amicus EPA through public records laws.
Because state and local officials have consistently emphasized not legal theories or political proposals, but
rather the specific fora in which they believe they will
obtain their preferred outcome, they have abandoned
any pretense that the results they hope to obtain are
equally likely regardless of the tribunal.
As documented, supra and in EPA’s prior amicus
brief in this matter, by its own admission the State of
Rhode Island is pursuing its litigation to obtain a “sustainable funding stream” for its Executive Branch officials’ spending ambitions, having failed to convince the
voters’ elected representatives in the state legislature
to provide such funds. Rhode Island’s circumstance in
this respect differs not at all from all such plaintiffs,
including the plaintiff in the case at bar. All such
plaintiffs are now moving heaven and earth to keep
these matters of national importance out of the
clutches of federal jurisdiction.
The desired outcome of a campaign to sue to make
federal policy in state courts is a thematic cousin of
the broader drive to use the courts when legislatures
30
fail to enact plaintiffs’ desired policies, and is wellunderstood among such plaintiffs and their legal team.
That Rhode Island and the City of Baltimore share not
only claims and legal strategies but legal counsel based
in California, and that the recruiting team has emphasized to targeted governmental entities the desire to
keep similar climate nuisance suits in state court as
the “more advantageous venue for these cases,” given
this Court’s ruling in American Electric Power, raises
concerns that the other similarly situated plaintiffs
also share the hope for state court biases in the campaign to eliminate budgetary shortfalls and otherwise
make policy through tort litigation.
For example, after U.S. District Judge William
Alsup dismissed the City of Oakland’s “climate nuisance” suit against many of the same defendants in
June 2018, a lobbyist hired to assist with recruiting
more governmental plaintiffs for Sher Edling passed
along a note of encouragement to one prospective client
whose counsel had expressed concern over that latest
failure.28 While seemingly written by legal counsel,
this lobbyist/recruiter flatly stated the team’s position
28
https://climatelitigationwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/
03/GSPlatt-explains-seeks-to-encourage-Fort-Lauderdale-postJudge-Alsop-Opinion.pdf. While recruiting Fort Lauderdale to
file a climate nuisance action similar to the instant matter, Platt
offered “context for Dean and Alain’s consideration” in an email
to Mayor Dean Trantalis, City Attorney Boileau, and Mayor’s
Chief of Staff Scott Wyman. This was specifically in response to
U.S. District Judge Alsup’s June 2018 opinion dismissing certain
municipalities’ “climate nuisance” litigation on the grounds that
the courts were not the proper place to deal with such global issues.
31
that state courts are the “more advantageous venue for
these cases”.29
UCLA Law professor – and consultant to plaintiff ’s counsel Sher Edling – Ann Carlson has similarly
been quoted to support the proposition that plaintiffs’
chances for recovery are much better in state fora. As
recently as February, a Los Angeles Times news article
quoted Carlson’s colleague Sean Hecht, for the same
proposition: that state courts are “more favorable to
‘nuisance’ lawsuits.” 30
V.
CONCLUSION.
The participants in the climate nuisance litigation
campaign that has now arrived at this Court have been
quoted publicly and discovered in public records to
have stated that their campaign to make climate policy
in the state courts is designed to obtain federal policy
ends, and from a perception that state courts will willingly embrace the ideological agenda that this Court
declined to embrace in American Electric Power. This
Court must reverse the decision below to confront the
odious traits of a state court “climate nuisance” litigation strategy, which includes efforts to use the courts
29
See fn. 12 of Amicus EPA’s brief at the petition stage.
“Two separate coalitions of California local governments
are arguing to have their suits heard in California state courts,
which compared to their federal counterparts, tend to be more
favorable to ‘nuisance’ lawsuits. . . .” Los Angeles Times, February
5, 2020, https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-05/
california-counties-suing-oil-companiesover-climte-change-facekey-hearing-wednesday.
30
32
both as a grab for revenue and to obtain other desired
policies that have eluded parties through the political
process, seeking the most favorable forum for a court
to stand in for the political process.
The decision below is designated for publication,
and has the potential to cause innumerable harms if
left to stand. First, it sends a message that the Federal
Circuits can enforce their own aging precedents even
after contrary decisions of this Court and amendments
from the legislative branch of the federal government
leave such decisions unsound. Second, the Fourth Circuit’s decision sends a message that what this Court
said in American Electric Power about the importance
of keeping the judiciary out of the federal policymaking
business is inapplicable to state judiciaries. Lastly, the
decision of the Fourth Circuit leaves the door open for
“multi-front” litigation and forum shopping that will
increase costs for litigants and serve to coerce cash
settlements rather than serve the ends of justice. This
Court should grant certiorari to make clear that federal courts have jurisdiction over federal energy and
environmental policy matters.
Dated: November 23, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
MATTHEW D. HARDIN
Counsel of Record
1725 I Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-802-1948
Email: Matt@MatthewHardin.com
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.