BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

Under Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199, 204 (1996), and despite the fact that appellate courts “may not reach beyond the certified order to address other orders made in the case,” appellate courts “may address any issue fairly included within the certified order because it is the order that is appealable, and not the controlling question identified by the district court.”

Baltimore’s mayor and city council sued various energy companies in Maryland state court. The defendant companies, invoking numerous grounds for federal jurisdiction including the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, removed the case to federal court. The district court, accepting the City’s argument that none of the defendants’ grounds for removal justified retaining federal jurisdiction, remanded the case back to state court. Ordinarily, an order remanding a case to state court is unreviewable on appeal. However, appellate review is available for orders “remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443 of [Title 28].” § 1447(d). The Fourth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider all of Defendants’ grounds for removal under § 1447(d) and could review only whether removal was appropriate under § 1442 (which, the court concluded, it was not). The Supreme Court declined to reach the merits of the case and concluded that the Fourth Circuit erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider all of the defendant’s grounds for removal under § 1447(d). Applying Yamaha to the case at hand, the Court concluded that “[b]ecause it is the [district court’s removal] order that is appealable, a court of appeals may address any issue fairly included within it.” VACATED AND REMANDED.