This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
BP P.L.C. and other energy companies sued the City of Baltimore in Maryland state court, alleging the companies concealed the environmental impacts of the fossil fuels they promoted.
The district court agreed and issued an order remanding the case back to state court.
Petitioners argue that Section 1447(d) authorizes appellate review of the entire remand order, not just particular issues.
Respondents contend that the defendants never removed the case under § 1442 or § 1443, so they are not entitled to any appellate review of the remand order.
The Fourth Circuit erred in holding that it was powerless to consider all of the defendants’ grounds for removal under § 1447(d).
Justice Sotomayor dissented, vacating the Fourth Circuit judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with her opinion.
- [1] 74a776669890b5fe6e44-r1-ce7415c692bf858a.pdf, p. 2
- [2] 74a776669890b5fe6e44-r1-ce7415c692bf858a.pdf, p. 2
- [3] d2ba8bf8046f6b613c9b-r1-ae28ba47a085c020.pdf, p. 5
- [4] d2ba8bf8046f6b613c9b-r1-ae28ba47a085c020.pdf, p. 75
- [5] 74a776669890b5fe6e44-r1-ce7415c692bf858a.pdf, p. 12
- [6] 74a776669890b5fe6e44-r1-ce7415c692bf858a.pdf, p. 16
- [7] d2ba8bf8046f6b613c9b-r1-ae28ba47a085c020.pdf, p. 45
- [8] 74a776669890b5fe6e44-r1-ce7415c692bf858a.pdf, p. 18
- [9] 74a776669890b5fe6e44-r1-ce7415c692bf858a.pdf, p. 19
Background and question before the Court
The City of Baltimore sued various energy companies in Maryland state court alleging concealment of environmental impacts of the fossil fuels they promoted.
The district court agreed with the City and issued an order remanding the case back to state court.
The case was not removed pursuant to § 1442 because the petitioners did not qualify for federal‑officer removal.
According to Justice Gorsuch, the central legal question is whether § 1447(d) permits a court of appeals to review any issue in a district‑court remand order when the defendant premised removal, in part, on the federal‑officer removal statute (§ 1442) or the civil‑rights removal statute (§ 1443).
What each side argues
Petitioner (BP P.L.C.)
Section 1447(d) authorizes appellate review of the entire remand order, not just specific issues.
According to Petitioners, the phrase “pursuant to” in a removal notice is merely a label and does not affect the substantive right to removal.
Respondent (Mayor and City Council of Baltimore)
According to City, the defendants never removed the case under § 1442 or § 1443, so they are not entitled to appellate review of the remand order.
According to City, congress implicitly ratified limits on appellate review when it adopted its 2011 amendments to the removal statutes.
What happened at oral argument
Chief Justice Roberts asked counsel to explain how the language “an order remanding a case shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise” should be read to limit review to only a portion of the order.
Justice Thomas later asked for further details about cases supporting the petitioners’ position.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 74a776669890b5fe6e44-r1-ce7415c692bf858a.pdfopinion
- d2ba8bf8046f6b613c9b-r1-ae28ba47a085c020.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 27, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.