City of Oakland v. BP P.L.C.
325 F.Supp. 3d 1017 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal common law public nuisance claims against energy companies for harms resulting from global climate change are not judicially cognizable because they present political questions that are committed to the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
Facts:
- Defendants Chevron, Exxon Mobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and ConocoPhillips are five of the world's largest investor-owned producers of fossil fuels.
- The combustion of fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, which scientific consensus agrees contributes to global warming.
- Global warming has caused rising global temperatures, melting ice sheets, and a corresponding rise in global sea levels.
- The plaintiffs, the coastal cities of Oakland and San Francisco, anticipate that their property will be submerged by rising sea levels in the future.
- Plaintiffs allege that defendants have long known about the climate risks associated with the use of their fossil fuel products.
- Despite this knowledge, defendants continued to produce and sell massive quantities of fossil fuels.
- Defendants allegedly engaged in public relations campaigns to promote the use of fossil fuels while downplaying the scientific consensus on global warming.
Procedural Posture:
- The cities of Oakland and San Francisco filed separate lawsuits against five fossil fuel companies in California state court, asserting a single claim for public nuisance under state law.
- Defendants removed the actions to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- Plaintiffs filed motions to remand the cases back to state court.
- The district court denied plaintiffs' motions to remand, ruling that the claims were necessarily governed by federal common law, thus creating federal jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs subsequently filed amended complaints that included a claim for public nuisance under federal common law.
- Defendants then moved to dismiss the amended complaints for failure to state a claim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal common law public nuisance claim, which seeks to hold fossil fuel producers liable for the effects of global warming stemming from their worldwide production and sale of fossil fuels, present a non-justiciable issue that should be resolved by the political branches of government?
Opinions:
Majority - William Alsup
Yes. A federal common law public nuisance claim seeking to hold fossil fuel producers liable for global warming is non-justiciable because such matters are properly reserved for the political branches. While the court accepts the scientific consensus on climate change, the problem's global nature requires a balancing of complex social, economic, and foreign policy interests that the judiciary is ill-equipped to handle. Previous cases like American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut held that the Clean Air Act displaced federal common law for domestic emissions. Although this case involves worldwide conduct beyond the Act's reach, the court must still exercise caution. Allowing a single court to adjudicate a global issue would improperly interfere with the foreign policy and national energy security decisions entrusted to Congress and the Executive Branch. Therefore, the court must defer to solutions developed through legislation and international diplomacy rather than fashioning a judicial remedy.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant barrier for climate change litigation brought under federal common law, classifying the issue as a non-justiciable political question. By moving beyond the statutory displacement rationale of AEP v. Connecticut and grounding its decision in separation of powers principles, the court created a broader, constitutionally-based obstacle for such claims. This ruling signals that federal courts are likely to be unreceptive to tort-based climate change lawsuits, particularly those with international dimensions. The decision effectively channels efforts to address climate change liability away from the federal judiciary and toward the legislative and executive branches, reinforcing the view that a global problem requires a political, not a judicial, solution.
Unlock the full brief for City of Oakland v. BP P.L.C.