Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`PRECEDENTIAL
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
`_______________
`
`No. 21-2728
`_______________
`
`CITY OF HOBOKEN
`
`v.
`
`CHEVRON CORPORATION; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.;
`EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; EXXONMOBIL OIL
`CORPORATION; SHELL PLC; BP P.L.C.; BP AMERICA,
`INC.; CONOCOPHILLIPS; CONOCOPHILLIPS CO.;
`PHILLIPS 66; PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY; AMERICAN
`PETROLEUM INSTITUTE; SHELL USA,
`Appellants.
`
`_______________
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the District of New Jersey
`(D.C. No. 2:20-cv-14243)
`District Judge: Honorable John M. Vazquez
`_______________
`
`No. 22-1096
`_______________
`
`STATE OF DELAWARE, ex rel. Kathleen Jennings,
`Attorney General of the State of Delaware
`
`v.
`
`
`
`PRECEDENTIAL
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
`_______________
`
`No. 21-2728
`_______________
`
`CITY OF HOBOKEN
`
`v.
`
`CHEVRON CORPORATION; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.;
`EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; EXXONMOBIL OIL
`CORPORATION; SHELL PLC; BP P.L.C.; BP AMERICA,
`INC.; CONOCOPHILLIPS; CONOCOPHILLIPS CO.;
`PHILLIPS 66; PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY; AMERICAN
`PETROLEUM INSTITUTE; SHELL USA,
`Appellants.
`
`_______________
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the District of New Jersey
`(D.C. No. 2:20-cv-14243)
`District Judge: Honorable John M. Vazquez
`_______________
`
`No. 22-1096
`_______________
`
`STATE OF DELAWARE, ex rel. Kathleen Jennings,
`Attorney General of the State of Delaware
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`BP AMERICA INC.; BP P.L.C.; CHEVRON
`CORPORATION; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.;
`CONOCOPHILLIPS; CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY;
`PHILLIPS 66; PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY; EXXON MOBIL
`CORPORATION; EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION;
`XTO ENERGY INC.; HESS CORPORATION;
`MARATHON OIL CORPORATION; MARATHON
`PETROLEUM CORPORATION; MARATHON
`PETROLEUM COMPANY LP; SPEEDWAY LLC;
`MURPHY OIL CORPORATION; MURPHY USA INC.;
`SHELL PLC; SHELL USA; CITGO PETROLEUM
`CORPORATION; TOTALENERGIES SE.; OCCIDENTAL
`PETROLEUM CORPORATION; DEVON ENERGY
`CORPORATION; APACHE CORPORATION; CNX
`RESOURCES CORPORATION; CONSOL ENERGY INC.;
`OVINTIV, INC.; AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE;
`TOTALENERGIES MARKETING USA, INC.,
`Appellants.
`
`_______________
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the District of Delaware
`(D.C. No. 1:20-cv-01429)
`District Judge: Honorable Leonard P. Stark
`_______________
`
`Argued: June 21, 2022
`
`Before: McKEE, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges
`
`(Filed: August 17, 2022)
`_______________
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.
`GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER
`333 S. Grand Ave.
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`
`Thomas G. Hungar
`GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER
`1050 Connecticut Ave. NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`Counsel for Appellants Chevron Corp. & Chevron USA
`Inc. (Nos. 21-2728 & 22-1096)
`
`
`Joel M. Silverstein
`Herbert J. Stern
`STERN KILCULLEN & RUFOLO
`325 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 110
`
`
`
`Florham Park, NJ 07932
`
`
`Counsel for Appellants Chevron Corp. & Chevron USA
`Inc. (No. 21-2728)
`
`
`Joshua D. Dick
`GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER
`555 Mission St., Suite 3000
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`
`Andrea E. Neuman
`GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER
`200 Park Ave., 47th Floor
`New York, NY 10166
`
`William E. Thomson, III
`GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER
`333 S. Grand Ave.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Counsel for Appellants Chevron Corp. & Chevron USA
`Inc. (No. 22-1096)
`
`
`William T. Marks
`Kannon K. Shanmugam
`PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON
`2001 K St. NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`Daniel J. Toal
`Theodore V. Wells, Jr.
`PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON
`1285 Ave. of the Americas
`New York, NY 10019
`Counsel for Appellants Exxon Mobil Corp. & ExxonMobil
`Oil Corp. (Nos. 21-2728 & 22-1096) & XTO Energy
`(No. 22-1096)
`
`
`Kevin H. Marino
`John D. Tortorella
`MARINO TORTORELLA & BOYLE
`437 S. Blvd.
`Chatham, NJ 07928
`Counsel for Appellants Exxon Mobil Corp. & ExxonMobil
`Oil Corp. (No. 21-2728)
`
`
`Paul J. Fishman
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER
`One Gateway Ctr., Suite 1025
`Newark, NJ 07102
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`Matthew T. Heartney
`John D. Lombardo
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER
`777 S. Figueroa St., 44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`
`Jonathan W. Hughes
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER
`3 Embarcadero Ctr., 10th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`Nancy G. Milburn
`Diana E. Reiter
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER
`250 W. 55th St.
`New York, NY 10019
`Counsel for Appellants BP PLC & BP America Inc.
`(Nos.21-2728 & 22-1096)
`
`
`Steven M. Bauer
`Margaret Tough
`LATHAM & WATKINS
`505 Montgomery St., Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`Daniel R. Brody
`Jameson R. Jones
`BARTLIT BECK
`1801 Wewatta St., Suite 1200
`Denver, CO 80202
`Counsel for Appellants ConocoPhillips & ConocoPhillips
`Co. (Nos. 21-2728 & 22-1096)
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`Jeffrey S. Chiesa
`Michael K. Plumb
`Dennis M. Toft
`CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI
`One Boland Dr.
`West Orange, NJ 07024
`Counsel for Appellants ConocoPhillips & ConocoPhillips
`Co. (No. 21-2728)
`
`
`Daniel J. Brown
`Alexandra M. Joyce
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH
`405 N. King St.
`Renaissance Ctr., 8th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Counsel for Appellants ConocoPhillips & ConocoPhillips
`Co. (No. 22-1096)
`
`
`Steven M. Bauer
`LATHAM & WATKINS
`505 Montgomery St., Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Counsel for Appellants Phillips 66 & Phillips 66 Co.
`(Nos.21-2728 & 22-1096)
`
`
`Anthony P. Callaghan
`GIBBONS
`One Pennsylvania Plaza, 37th Floor
`New York, NY 10119
`
`Sylvia-Rebecca Gutierrez
`Thomas R. Valen
`GIBBONS
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`One Gateway Ctr.
`Newark, NJ 07102
`Counsel for Appellants Phillips 66 & Phillips 66 Co.
`(No. 21-2728)
`
`
`Daniel J. Brown
`Alexandra M. Joyce
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH
`405 N. King St.
`Renaissance Ctr., 8th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`Margaret Tough
`LATHAM & WATKINS
`505 Montgomery St., Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`Robert W. Whetzel
`RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER
`920 N. King St.
`One Rodney Square
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Counsel for Appellants Phillips 66 & Phillips 66 Co.
`(No. 22-1096)
`
`
`Kathryn M. Barber
`Brian D. Schmalzbach
`MCGUIREWOODS
`800 E. Canal St.
`Gateway Plaza
`Richmond, VA 23219
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`Jeffrey M. Beyer
`Anthony J. Zarillo, Jr.
`RIKER DANZIG SCHERER HYLAND & PERRETTI
`One Speedwell Ave.
`Headquarters Plaza
`Morristown, NJ 07962
`Counsel for Appellant American Petroleum Institute
`(No. 21-2728)
`
`
`Kevin J. Mangan
`WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON
`1313 N. Market St., Suite 1200
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`Andrew G. McBride
`MCGUIREWOODS
`888 16th St. NW, Suite 500
`Washington, DC 20006
`Counsel for Appellant American Petroleum Institute
`(No. 22-1096)
`
`
`
`
`
`[Argued]
`
`
`David C. Frederick
`Grace W. Knofczynski
`Daniel Severson
`KELLOGG HANSEN TODD FIGEL & FREDERICK
`1615 M St. NW
`Sumner Square, Suite 400
`Washington, DC 20036
`Counsel for Appellants Shell PLC & Shell USA Inc.
`(Nos. 21-2728 & 22-1096)
`
`
`Steven L. Caponi
`K&L GATES
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`600 N. King St., Suite 901
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Counsel for Appellants Shell PLC & Shell USA Inc.
`(No. 22-1096)
`
`
`Joseph J. Bellew
`WHITE & WILLIAMS
`600 N. King St., Suite 800
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`Megan H. Berge
`BAKER BOTTS
`101 California St., Suite 3200
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`J. Scott Janoe
`BAKER BOTTS
`910 Louisiana St.
`One Shell Plaza, 37th Floor
`Houston, TX 77002
`Counsel for Appellants Hess Corp. & Murphy Oil Corp.
`(No. 22-1096)
`
`
`Tristan L. Duncan
`SHOOK HARDY & BACON
`2555 Grand Blvd.
`Kansas City, MO 64108
`
`Daniel B. Rogers
`SHOOK HARDY & BACON
`201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3200
`Miami, FL 33131
` Counsel for Appellant Murphy USA (No. 22-1096)
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`
`Michael A. Barlow
`ABRAMS & BAYLISS
`20 Montchanin Rd., Suite 200
`Wilmington, DE 19807
`
`Robert P. Reznick
`ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE
`1152 15th St. NW
`Columbia Ctr.
`Washington, DC 20005
` Counsel for Appellant Marathon Oil Corp. (No. 22-1096)
`
`Shannon S. Broome
`Ann M. Mortimore
`HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH
`50 California St., Suite 1700
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`Shawn P. Regan
`HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH
`200 Park Ave., 52nd Floor
`New York, NY 10166
`
`Antionette D. Hubbard
`MARON MARVEL BRADLEY & ANDERSON
`1201 N. Market St., Suite 900
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Counsel for Appellants Marathon Petroleum Corp., Mara-
`thon Petroleum Co. LP, & Speedway LLC (No. 22-1096)
`
`
`Robert E. Dunn
`EIMER STAHL
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`99 S. Almaden Blvd., Suite 642
`San Jose, CA 95113
`
`Nathan P. Eimer
`Pamela R. Hanebutt
`Lisa S. Meyer
`EIMER STAHL
`224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1100
`Chicago, IL 60604
`Counsel for Appellant Citgo Petroleum Corp. (No. 22-
`1096)
`
`
`Jeffrey L. Moyer
`RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER
`920 N. King St.
`One Rodney Square
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`Vanessa Lavely
`Kevin J. Orsini
`CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
`825 Eighth Ave.
`Worldwide Plaza
`New York, NY 10019
`Counsel for Appellant Occidental Petroleum Corp.
`(No. 22-1096)
`
`
`Joy C. Fuhr
`Brian D. Schmalzbach
`MCGUIREWOODS
`800 E. Canal St.
`Gateway Plaza
`Richmond, VA 23219
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 12 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`
`Christian J. Singewald
`WHITE & WILLIAMS
`600 N. King St., Suite 800
`Wilmington, DE 19801
` Counsel for Appellant Devon Energy Corp. (No. 22-1096)
`
`Michael A. Barlow
`ABRAMS & BAYLISS
`20 Montchanin Rd., Suite 200
`Wilmington, DE 19807
`
`Alexandra Ewing
`Robert W. Whetzel
`RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER
`920 N. King St.
`One Rodney Square
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`Robert P. Reznick
`ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE
`1152 15th St. NW
`Columbia Ctr.
`Washington, DC 20005
` Counsel for Appellant Apache Corp. (No. 22-1096)
`
`J. Benjamin Aguinaga
`JONES DAY
`2727 N. Harwood St., Suite 600
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Noel J. Francisco
`David M. Morrell
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 13 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`JONES DAY
`51 Louisiana Ave. NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`David C. Kiernan
`JONES DAY
`555 California St., 26th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Counsel for Appellants CNX Resources Corp., Consol
`Energy Inc., & Ovintiv Inc. (No. 22-1096)
`
`
`Tracy A. Roman
`Kathleen T. Sooy
`CROWELL & MORING
`1001 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
`Washington, DC 20004
` Counsel for Appellants CNX Resources Corp. & Consol
`Energy Inc. (No. 22-1096)
`
`Honor R. Costello
`CROWELL & MORING
`590 Madison Ave., 20th Floor
`New York, NY 10022
` Counsel for Appellant Consol Energy Inc. (No. 22-1096)
`
`Michael F. Healy
`SHOOK HARDY & BACON
`555 Mission St., Suite 2300
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`
`Mackenzie M. Wrobel
`DUANE MORRIS
`1201 N. Market St., Suite 501
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 14 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`
`
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`Michael L. Fox
`DUANE MORRIS
`7500 B St., Suite 2900
`San Diego, CA 92101
` Counsel for Appellant Ovintiv Inc. (No. 22-1096)
`
`Blake K. Rohrbacher
`Alexandra Ewing
`Robert W. Whetzel
`RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER
`920 N. King St.
`One Rodney Square
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Counsel for Appellants TotalEnergies Marketing USA Inc.
`& Total Energies SE (No. 22-1096)
`
`
`
` [Argued]
`
`
`
`Jonathan S. Abady
`Matthew D. Brinckerhoff
`Ananda V. Burra
`Max R. Selver
`EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL
`600 Fifth Ave., 10th Floor
`New York, NY 10020
`
`Gerald Krovatin
`Helen A. Nau
`KROVATIN NAU
`60 Park Place, Suite 1100
`Newark, NJ 07102
` Counsel for Appellee City of Hoboken (No. 21-2728)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 15 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`
`
`[Argued]
`
`Stephanie D. Biehl
`Matthew K. Edling
`Quentin C. Karpilow
`Victor M. Sher
`
`SHER EDLING
`100 Montgomery St., Suite 1410
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`
`Ralph K. Durstein, III
`Christian D. Wright
`OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DELAWARE
`Delaware Department of Justice
`820 N. French St.
`Carvel Office Building
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`Jameson A.L. Tweedie
`DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
`Environmental Unit
`391 Lukens Dr.
`New Castle, DE 19720
` Counsel for Appellee Delaware (No. 22-1096)
`
`James P. Davy
`ALL RISE TRIAL & APPELLATE
`P.O. Box 15216
`Philadelphia, PA 19125
`Counsel for Amici Federal Courts & Foreign Relations
`Scholars (No. 22-1096)
`
`
`Philip S. Goldberg
`SHOOK HARDY & BACON
`1800 K St. NW, Suite 1000
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 16 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`Counsel for Amici National Association of Convenience
`Stores, NATSO Inc, Society of Gasoline Marketers of
`America & National Association of Manufacturers
`(No. 21-2728) & National Association of Manufacturers
`(No. 22-1096)
`
`
`Jamison Davies
`NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
`100 Church St.
`New York, NY 10007
` Counsel for Amicus City of New York (No. 21-2728)
`
`Peter D. Huffman
`NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
`1152 15th St. NW, Suite 300
`Washington, DC 20005
`Counsel for Amicus Natural Resources Defense Council
`(Nos. 21-2728 & 22-1096)
`
`
`Christian D. Wright
`OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DELAWARE
`Delaware Department of Justice
`820 N. French St.
`Carvel Office Building
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Counsel for Amici Delaware, Connecticut, Hawaii,
`Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico,
`New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Massachu-
`setts, Pennsylvania, & District of Columbia (No. 21-2728)
`
`
`Aaron Kleinbaum
`OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 17 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`Division of Law
`25 Market St.
`Hughes Justice Complex
`Trenton, NJ 08625
`Counsel for Amicus New Jersey (No. 22-1096)
`
`
`Thomas M. Fisher
`OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA
`302 W. Washington St.
`Indianapolis, IN 46204
`Counsel for Amici Indiana (Nos. 21-2728 & 22-1096) &
`Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky,
`Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma,
`South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, & Wyoming (No.
`22-1096)
`
`
`William M. Jay
`Andrew Kim
`GOODWIN PROCTER
`1900 N St. NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`Counsel for Amicus Chamber of Commerce of the United
`States of America (Nos. 21-2728 & 22-1096)
`
`
`Tristan L. Duncan
`SHOOK HARDY & BACON
`2555 Grand Blvd.
`Kansas City, MO 64108
`
`Daniel B. Rogers
`SHOOK HARDY & BACON
`201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3200
`Miami, FL 33131
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 18 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`Counsel for Amici General Richard B. Myers & Admiral
`Michael G. Mullen (No. 21-2728)
`
`
`Patrick A. Thronson
`JANET & SUGGS
`4 Reservoir Circle, Suite 200
`Baltimore, MD 21208
`Counsel for Amici National League of Cities & United
`States Conference of Mayors (Nos. 21-2728 & 22-1096)
`
`
`Scott L. Nelson
`PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP
`1600 20th St. NW
`Washington, DC 20009
`Counsel for Amicus Public Citizen Inc. (No. 22-1096)
`
`
`Jonathan W. Cuneo
`CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA
`4725 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 200
`Washington, DC 20016
`Counsel for Amicus Robert S. Taylor (No. 22-1096)
`
`
`William A. Rossbach
`ROSSBACH LAW
`401 N. Washington St.
`P.O. Box 8988
`Missoula, MT 59807
`Counsel for Amici Robert Kopp, Michael Oppenheimer,
`Kristina Dahl, Brenda Ekwurzel, Peter C. Frumhoff, Gary
`B. Griggs, Sverre L. Leroy, L. Delta Merner, & Donald J.
`Wuebbles (No. 22-1096)
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 19 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`Ron Kilgard
`KELLER ROHRBACK
`3101 N. Central Ave., Suite 1400
`Phoenix, AZ 85012
`Counsel for Amici Robert Brulle, Center for Climate In-
`tegrity, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Justin Far-
`rell, Benjamin Franta, Stephan Lewandowsky, Naomi
`Oreskes, Geoffrey Supran, & Union of Concerned Scien-
`tists (No. 22-1096)
`
`
`Kenneth T. Kristl
`WIDENER UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
`4601 Concord Pike
`P.O. Box 7474
`Wilmington, DE 19803
`Counsel for Amici Legal Scholars (No. 22-1096)
`
`
`_______________
`
`OPINION OF THE COURT
`_______________
`
`BIBAS, Circuit Judge.
`Our federal system trusts state courts to hear most cases—
`even big, important ones that raise federal defenses. Plaintiffs
`choose which claims to file, in which court, and under which
`law. Defendants may prefer federal court, but they may not re-
`move their cases to federal court unless federal laws let them.
`Here, they do not.
`Oil companies ask us to hear two sweeping climate-change
`suits. But the plaintiffs filed those suits in state court based only
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 20 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`on state tort law. And there is no federal hook that lets defend-
`ants remove them to federal court. So we will affirm the Dis-
`trict Courts’ orders sending them back.
`I. CLIMATE CHANGE COMES TO COURT
`Coastal residents have a problem. In recent decades, the
`oceans have risen, harming beaches and marshland. And com-
`munities have suffered torrential rains and stronger hurricanes.
`Many residents blame fossil fuels for climate change. Burn-
`ing fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. And that carbon diox-
`ide, studies suggest, can heat the air and eventually make the
`oceans rise.
` Angered, cities and states across the country have sued oil
`companies. They say the oil companies knew how dangerous
`fossil fuels were for the environment yet did not slow produc-
`tion. And they said nothing about its dangers; on the contrary,
`they labored to convince the public that burning fossil fuels
`was fine.
`Here, we address two of those suits. Delaware and Hobo-
`ken, New Jersey each sued the oil companies in state court for
`state-law torts. By “produc[ing], marketing, and s[e]l[ling] fos-
`sil fuels,” they said, the oil companies had worsened climate
`change. Hoboken App. 68. So they sought damages for the
`environmental harm they had suffered and injunctions to stop
`future harm.
`Though these suits started in state court, they did not stay
`there. The oil companies promptly removed them to federal
`district courts. The suits’ broad focus on “global climate
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 21 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`
`
`change,” the companies argued, “demand[ed] resolution by a
`federal court under federal law.” Hoboken App. 194; Del. App.
`94. They listed several reasons why:
`
`
`the tort claims arose under federal law, either be-
`cause:
`o they were inherently federal, not state claims,
`or
`o they raised substantive federal issues;
`the suits related to producing oil on the Outer Con-
`tinental Shelf; and
`
`the oil companies were acting under federal officers.
`But both District Courts rejected these theories. And they
`were in good company: so far, four other circuits have refused
`to allow the oil companies to remove similar state tort suits to
`federal court. See Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Prods. Co., 35
`F.4th 44, 50–51 (1st Cir. 2022); Mayor & City Council of Balt.
`v. BP P.L.C., 31 F.4th 178, 238 (4th Cir. 2022); City & Cnty.
`of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP, 2022 WL 2525427, at *2 (9th Cir.
`July 7, 2022); Cnty. of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., 32 F.4th
`733, 744 (9th Cir. 2022); Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Boulder
`Cnty. v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., 25 F.4th 1238, 1246 (10th
`Cir. 2022).
`We agree with our sister circuits:
` These two lawsuits neither are inherently federal nor
`raise substantial federal issues that belong in federal
`court.
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 22 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
` Oil production on the Outer Continental Shelf is too
`many steps removed from the burning of fuels that
`causes climate change.
` Plus, Delaware and Hoboken are not suing over
`actions that the companies were directed to take by
`federal officers.
`So we will affirm the District Courts’ orders remanding these
`cases to state court.
`II. THESE STATE TORT CLAIMS DO NOT
`“ARISE UNDER” FEDERAL LAW
`Not all claims belong in federal court. The Constitution
`limits us to hearing only cases involving claims “arising under”
`its provisions, federal laws, or treaties, or those involving ad-
`miralty or certain parties. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. All
`other claims must go to state courts instead. The oil companies
`may remove these cases to federal court only if they present
`federal questions. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441.
`Most federal-question cases allege violations of the Consti-
`tution, federal statutes, or federal common law. But Delaware
`and Hoboken allege only the torts of nuisance, trespass, negli-
`gence (including negligent failure to warn), and misrepresen-
`tation, plus consumer-fraud violations, all under state law. So
`the companies must show either that these state claims are
`completely preempted by federal law or that some substantial
`federal issue must be resolved. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,
`482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987); Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v.
`Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 313–14 (2005). They show
`neither.
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 23 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`A. These are state, not federal, claims
`If plaintiffs say their claims are state-law claims, we almost
`always credit that. That is because plaintiffs are “the master[s]
`of the[ir] claim[s].” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. They may
`“avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.”
`Id. After all, they choose to sue, so they choose why.
`But once in a great while, we “recharacteriz[e] a state law
`claim as a federal claim removable to [federal] court.” Goepel
`v. Nat’l Postal Mail Handlers Union, 36 F.3d 306, 312 (3d Cir.
`1994). We can do that only when some federal statute com-
`pletely preempts state law.
`Complete preemption is different from ordinary preemp-
`tion. Ordinary preemption is a defense that applies when in-
`compatible federal and state laws regulate the same actions. A
`defendant may raise ordinary preemption to defeat the plain-
`tiff’s state-law claim. Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392–93.
`Complete preemption, by contrast, is a potent jurisdictional
`fiction. It lets courts recast a state-law claim as a federal one.
`Id. at 393. Defendants can thus remove the suit to federal court.
`Ordinary preemption defenses cannot work this alchemy. Id.
`But complete preemption is rare. Federal law completely
`preempts state law only when there is (1) a federal statute that
`(2) authorizes federal claims “vindicating the same interest as
`the state claim.” Goepel, 36 F.3d at 315. Only statutes that
`check both boxes can transform state-law claims into federal
`ones. Id. at 311–12. And the Supreme Court has identified only
`three. See Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6–8,
`10–11 (2003) (ERISA, the National Bank Act, and the Labor-
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 24 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`Management Relations Act). Unsurprisingly, the companies
`cannot cite an applicable statute that passes this test.
`So instead, the oil companies try another tack. They suggest
`a new form of complete preemption, one that relies not on stat-
`utes but federal common law. Rather than limiting ourselves to
`three federal statutes, they say, we should just ask if our con-
`stitutional system “permit[s] the controversy to be resolved un-
`der state law.” Oil Cos. Br. 29 (Hoboken) (quoting Tex. Indus.,
`Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630, 641 (1981)). Oth-
`erwise, states could brush off national interests and upend the
`federal system. But this theory has a fatal flaw: the lynchpin
`case that the oil companies cite is about garden-variety
`preemption, not the complete preemption they need. See Tex.
`Indus., 451 U.S. at 641.
`Undeterred, the oil companies argue that only federal com-
`mon law can resolve far-reaching climate-change suits. In sup-
`port, they point to a recent decision holding that a climate-
`change suit had to be decided under federal, not state, law. See
`City of New York v. Chevron Corp., 993 F.3d 81, 90–93 (2d
`Cir. 2021). But that case involved another ordinary-preemption
`defense to a case first filed in federal court. Id. at 94. It did not
`even try to check the boxes needed for complete preemption.
`Nor did it suggest another way to get there. See id. at 93–94
`(acknowledging that its preemption analysis might not satisfy
`the “heightened standard unique to the removability inquiry”).
`Next, the companies cite two circuit cases that relabeled
`state-common-law claims as federal. See Sam L. Majors Jew-
`elers v. ABX, Inc., 117 F.3d 922, 924, 926–29 (5th Cir. 1997);
`New SD, Inc. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 79 F.3d 953, 955 (9th
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 25 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`Cir. 1996). Neither explains what gives federal courts the au-
`thority to refashion state-common-law claims as federal. Be-
`sides, most courts recognize that these cases are not good law.
`See, e.g., Earth Island Inst. v. Crystal Geyser Water Co., 521
`F. Supp. 3d 863, 874–76 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (noting New SD’s
`unique facts and doubting its continued viability); Del. App. 37
`n.9 (collecting cases declining to follow Sam L. Majors). We
`will not follow those outliers.
`Finally, the companies cite a Supreme Court footnote’s hint
`that federal courts have broad power to “determine whether the
`real nature of [a] claim is federal.” Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc.
`v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 397 n.2 (1981) (internal quotation
`marks omitted). But the Court later walked that suggestion
`back. Recognizing the “considerable confusion” caused by
`“Moitie’s enigmatic footnote,” the Court later cabined it to its
`“case-specific context.” Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S.
`470, 477–78 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). The
`footnote did not change “the rule” that “a federal defense,” like
`ordinary preemption, does not justify removal. Id. at 478.
`But the oil companies’ biggest problem is that our prece-
`dent already forecloses their test. We have said that “the two-
`part test for complete preemption” is “the only basis for rechar-
`acterizing a state law claim as a federal claim removable to
`[federal] court.” Goepel, 36 F.3d at 312 (emphasis added). So
`because the oil companies have no statute, they have no re-
`moval jurisdiction either.
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 26 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`B. Nor do they raise a substantial federal question
`The state tort claims may not be federal, the oil companies
`say, but at least they raise “substantial, disputed federal ques-
`tions.” Oil Cos. Br. 31 (Hoboken) (citing Grable, 545 U.S. at
`313–14); Oil Cos. Br. 30 (Del.) (same). And when state claims
`require resolving substantial federal issues, federal courts can
`hear them. Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013). But nei-
`ther of the federal issues the oil companies identify justifies
`federal jurisdiction here.
`First, the companies rehash their common-law preemption
`argument. Because emissions claims “arise in an area governed
`exclusively by federal law,” they argue, every “element[] of
`these claims [is] necessarily federal.” Oil Cos. Br. 31 (Del.)
`(emphasis omitted); see also Oil Cos. Br. 31 (Hoboken)
`(same).
`But this is the same wolf in a different sheep’s clothing. The
`federal issue that the oil companies identify is whether federal
`common law governs these claims. Yet as we have said, there
`is no complete preemption here. And ordinary preemption is a
`defense. Defenses are not the kinds of substantial federal ques-
`tions that support federal jurisdiction. Metro Life Ins. Co. v.
`Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987).
`Contrast this argument with the two key cases defining
`what federal questions are substantial and disputed. In each, to
`prove some element of a state-law claim, the plaintiff had to
`win on an issue of federal law. In Grable, an “essential element
`of [Grable’s state] quiet title claim” required it to prove that the
`IRS had not “give[n] it adequate notice, as defined by federal
`
`26
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 27 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`law.” 545 U.S. at 314–15. And in Gunn, to show legal malprac-
`tice, Gunn had to prove that if his lawyers had been competent,
`“he would have prevailed in his federal patent infringement
`case.” 568 U.S. at 259.
`Finally, the oil companies raise First Amendment prob-
`lems. They stress that these suits charge them with misrepre-
`senting “matters of public concern” about climate change. Oil
`Cos. Br. 33 (Hoboken); Oil Cos. Br. 33 (Del.). But though the
`First Amendment limits state laws that touch speech, those lim-
`its do not extend federal jurisdiction to every such claim. State
`courts routinely hear libel, slander, and misrepresentation cases
`involving matters of public concern. The claims here arise un-
`der state law, and their elements do not require resolving sub-
`stantial, disputed federal questions.
`III. THESE CLAIMS ARE TOO FAR REMOVED FROM
`OIL PRODUCTION ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
`The oil companies fall back on statutes that let federal
`courts hear state-law claims on special subjects. Here, they cite
`a law that lets federal courts hear cases
`arising out of, or in connection with (A) any op-
`eration conducted on the outer Continental Shelf
`which involves exploration, development, or
`production of the minerals, of the subsoil and
`seabed of the outer Continental Shelf, or which
`involves rights to such minerals….
`43 U.S.C. § 1349(b)(1).
`
`27
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 28 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`The companies stress that a sizable chunk of oil comes from
`the Shelf. See Oil Cos. Br. 60 (Hoboken) (one-third of U.S.-
`produced oil); Oral Arg. 39:04–20 (1–5% of global oil). So,
`they say, the Shelf Act lets us hear these cases. To weigh this
`argument, we must figure out what the Shelf Act means and
`how it applies.
`A. For jurisdiction, the Shelf Act requires a close link
`to operations on the Shelf
`1. Oil production on the Shelf need not cause the suit. Start
`with the text. The parties (and other circuits) dispute what it
`takes for a suit to be “in connection with” shelf operations. Ho-
`boken and Delaware argue that this phrase limits jurisdiction
`to cases where oil production is a but-for cause of the tort or
`the like. The Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits agree. See
`Mayor & City Council of Balt., 31 F.4th at 220; In re Deep-
`water Horizon, 745 F.3d 157, 163 (5th Cir. 2014); Bd. of Cnty.
`Comm’rs of Boulder Cnty., 25 F.4th at 1272–75.
`But that reading is too cramped. “Connection” reaches be-
`yond causation. It means a “causal or logical relation or se-
`quence.” Connection (def. 1a), Webster’s Ninth New Colle-
`giate Dictionary (1988) (emphasis added); accord Connexion
`(def. 3), Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989) (“a bond of
`interdependence, causality, logical sequence, coherence, or the
`like”). Legos, puzzle pieces, and train cars connect, though
`they do not cause one another. And as statisticians stress, a cor-
`relation or connection does not imply causation.
`The structure of the provision confirms this reading. The
`jurisdictional phrase covers both suits “arising out of”
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 29 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`production on the Shelf and those “in connection with” it. 43
`U.S.C. § 1349(b)(1). The most natural reading is that the aris-
`ing-out-of language “asks about causation; but” the in-connec-
`tion-with wording “contemplates that some relationships will
`support jurisdiction without a causal showing.” Ford Motor
`Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1026 (2021)
`(interpreting similar language from a judicial rule requiring
`that specific personal jurisdiction “arise out of or relate to” the
`disputed conduct (internal quotation marks omitted)). Reading
`the second half to require causation would make it redundant
`with the first half. See Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528,
`543 (2015) (canon against surplusage).
`Though we depart from some circuits’ approaches, other
`precedent supports our reasoning. Indeed, at least the Ninth
`Circuit reads the Shelf Act not to require but-for causation. San
`Mateo, 32 F.4th at 754. Plus, courts have read similar connec-
`tion language in different statutes or rules to cover more than
`just but-for causes. See, e.g., Maracich v. Spears, 570 U.S. 48,
`59 (2013) (Privacy Act); United States v. Loney, 219 F.3d 281,
`284 (3d Cir. 2000) (Sentencing Guidelines). “[I]n connection
`with” is “broad.” Mont v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1826, 1832
`(2019) (interpreting that language in another statute). So we
`read it broadly.
`2. A suit must be linked closely to production or develop-
`ment on the Shelf. But however broad, the statute must stop
`somewhere. See id. (recognizing that “in connection with”
`must have “outer bounds”). Otherwise, “connections, like rela-
`tions, stop nowhere.” Maracich, 570 U.S. at 59 (internal quo-
`tation marks omitted). Applied loosely, the statute could sweep
`
`29
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2728 Document: 137 Page: 30 Date Filed: 08/17/2022
`
`in many routine state-law claims. Fender benders might be
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
