Opinion analysis

On Monday, the Supreme Court gave a huge boost to a group of oil and gas companies that tried not to enter state courts, but instead filed suits against them in federal courts. Through the 7-1 vote (Judge Samuel Alito did not participate), the judge reached an agreement with companies such as BP, Chevron and Exxon Mobil, and the Federal Court of Appeals has the right to review the entire order to send the case back to the United States. State courts, not just one of the reasons why the company relied on this case to transfer the case to the federal court.

case, BP PLC v. Baltimore Mayor and City CouncilIt started three years ago when the city of Baltimore filed a lawsuit to hold the company accountable for its role in climate change. The city argued that these companies know that the use of fossil fuels will cause global warming, but will continue to produce and sell fossil fuel products anyway.

The Supreme Court did not consider the merits of the city’s case. Instead, the battle in the court is over. The city filed a lawsuit in a Maryland court. However, defendants, especially out-of-state companies, sometimes try to transfer litigation to federal courts, especially when they believe that a judge or jury will be in their favor, or they want to take advantage of federal regulations. This is exactly what Chevron did in this case: to transfer the lawsuit to a federal court in Maryland-this process is called “transfer.” Then, New York City asked the federal district court to return the case to the state court, and the district court agreed to this procedure, which is called the “remand” procedure. The two companies appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Generally speaking, most orders to return a case to a state court cannot be appealed, but when the defendant relies on a law called the Federal Official Dismissal Act (which allows litigation against federal officials), the federal law excludes two narrow senses. Exceptions. Referral to the Federal Court, or a separate law allows civil rights cases to be dismissed. These companies rely on federal officials regulations as one of eight reasons for referrals to federal courts, believing that the city is trying to hold them accountable for their work under the direction of federal officials.

The Fourth Circuit ruled that it could only review whether the removal was appropriate in accordance with the Federal Officers’ Regulations and concluded that it was not feasible. The Fourth Circuit refused to hear the company’s attempt to appeal the District Court’s rejection of the other seven alleged grounds for removal. On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Circuit was wrong. In Judge Neil Gorsuch’s ruling, the court clearly stated that the Federal Court of Appeals can review all remand orders in the district court if one of the grounds for expulsion can be appealed.

The court rejected the city’s argument that allowing an appeal against the remand order would delay the proceedings on the merits. Gosucci pointed out that Congress has allowed appeals in cases withdrawn under the Federal Official Regulations and Civil Rights Regulations, creating the possibility of delays. But in any case, Gorsoqi continued: “Even the toughest policy arguments cannot “overcome” clear statutory instructions.” Gorsuch added that if this is not the result Congress wants, the law is free to change.

The court did not give them everything they hoped for. The court refused to consider other reasons for removal from the company, and instead sent the case back to the Fourth Circuit for its first review.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor (Sonia Sotomayor) disagrees. She complained that because of the court’s ruling, the exception would “swallow the rule.” She argued that the defendant would be able to “dwindle” federal officials or an argument in the civil rights statute to “circumvent their case” to “evade” the general standard of appeal review.

Alito has withdrawn from the case, and the latter has disclosed investments in the two energy companies involved in the lawsuit.

This article is Originally published on the court Hao Hao.