October Term 2020 · Docket 19-1189

Does a frivolous federal officer claim guarantee an appeal?

BP argues a single federal officer claim forces appellate review. Baltimore argues the statute requires a valid basis for removal.

Official caption: BP p.l.c. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
Latest argument session: 2021-01-19
Latest official Court activity: 2021-01-19
Latest verified event: Decided
Sources analyzed through: Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

2026-08-29 — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
2026-08-29 — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
2026-08-29 — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

Argument 1 · 2021-01-19

What happened at the argument
BP counsel argued the statute mandates review. He cited the federal officer exception. He claimed the text is clear. He rejected the need for a valid claim. He emphasized the plain language of the law. He argued against judicial discretion in this context. He sought a bright-line rule for appeals. He warned against expanding state court power.
Baltimore counsel argued the statute requires validity. He cited the purpose of the removal law. He claimed a frivolous claim cannot trigger review. He emphasized the need for a proper basis. He warned against strategic abuse of the process. He argued for a reasonable interpretation. He sought to preserve state court authority. He focused on the practical consequences.
Justices questioned the practical implications of the interpretations. They probed the definition of a valid claim. They examined the consequences of allowing frivolous appeals. They considered the impact on state courts. They asked about the role of judicial discretion. They explored the balance between federal and state power. They sought clarity on the statutory text.

Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 45-55 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 45-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 37-15 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 37-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 49-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 15-49 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 15-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 53-17 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 53-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 25-43 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 25-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 45-29 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 45-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 49-53 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 49-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 55-55 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 55-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 7-45 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 7-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 45-19 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 45-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 49-15 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 49-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 39-53 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 39-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 27-41 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 27-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 78, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 78, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-37 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 45-53 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 45-53

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

BP seeks to remove a state case to federal court. It cites the federal officer statute. The district court rejects the claim and remands the case. BP wants to appeal that remand order. Baltimore argues the appeal is barred. The dispute centers on Section 1447(d). This statute limits appeals of remand orders. It creates an exception for federal officer claims.