CITY & COUNTY OF HONOLULU V. SUNOCO LP, No. 21-15313 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiffs alleged that the oil and gas companies knew about climate change, understood the harms energy exploration and extraction inflicted on the environment, and concealed those harms from the public. Plaintiffs sued in Hawaii state court, asserting state-law public and private nuisance, failure to warn, and trespass claims. The complaints asserted that Defendants’ deception caused harm from climate change, like property damage from extreme weather and land encroachment because of rising sea levels.
The Ninth Circuit held that Defendants could not show federal jurisdiction. The court held that removal from state court was not proper under federal officer jurisdiction and that Plaintiffs’ injuries were for or relating to Defendants’ actions.
The court explained that Defendants did not act under federal officers when they produced oil and gas during the Korean War and in the 1970s under the Defense Production Act when they repaid offshore oil leases in kind and contracted with the government to operate the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, when they conducted offshore oil operations, or when they operated the Elk Hills oil reserve. The court further held that Defendants did not assert a colorable federal defense by citing the government-contractor defense, preemption, federal immunity, the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Clauses, the Due Process Clause, the First Amendment, and the foreign affairs doctrine. The court concluded that most of these defenses failed to stem from official duties, and the government-contractor and immunity defenses were not colorable. The court held that Defendants did not establish federal enclave jurisdiction because they could not show that activities on federal enclaves directly caused Plaintiffs’ injuries.
Court Description: Climate-Related Claims / Federal Jurisdiction. Affirming the district court’s order remanding to state court climate-related claims against numerous oil and gas companies, the panel held that defendants could not show federal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs alleged that the oil and gas companies knew about climate change, understood the harms energy exploration and extraction inflicted on the environment, and concealed those harms from the public. Plaintiffs sued in Hawaii state court, asserting state-law public and private nuisance, failure to warn, and trespass claims. The complaints asserted that defendants’ deception caused harms from climate change, like property damage from extreme weather and land encroachment because of rising sea levels. The panel held that removal from state court was not proper under federal officer jurisdiction, which required defendants to show that they were “acting under” federal officers, that they could assert a colorable federal defense, and that plaintiffs’ injuries were for or relating to defendants’ actions. The panel held that defendants did not act under federal officers when they produced oil and gas during the Korean War and in the 1970s under the Defense Production Act, when they repaid offshore oil leases in kind and contracted with the government to operate the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, when they conducted offshore oil operations, or when they operated the Elk Hills oil reserve, CITY & CTY. OF HONOLULU V. SUNOCO 5 an oil field run jointly by the Navy and Standard Oil. The panel further held that defendants did not assert a colorable federal defense by citing the government-contractor defense, preemption, federal immunity, the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Clauses, the Due Process Clause, the First Amendment, and the foreign affairs doctrine. The panel concluded that most of these defenses failed to stem from official duties, and the government-contractor and immunity defenses were not colorable. The panel held that defendants did not establish federal enclave jurisdiction because they could not show that activities on federal enclaves directly caused plaintiffs’ injuries. The panel explained that plaintiffs’ claims were not about defendants’ oil and gas operations, and defendants’ activities on federal land were too remote and attenuated from plaintiffs’ injuries. Finally, the panel held that defendants did not establish jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act because their activities on the Outer Continental Shelf were too attenuated from plaintiffs’ injuries. 6 CITY & CTY. OF HONOLULU V. SUNOCO
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.