Whether putative state-law tort claims alleging harm from global climate change are removable because they arise under federal law

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Two coastal California cities brought this case in state court, seeking to hold five energy companies liable for an alleged state law “public nuisance’— global climate change—based on their production and sale of fossil fuels. The cities say this case is “about shifting the costs of abating sea level rise . . . back onto the companies.” To date, over twenty state and local governments have brought similar cases in state courts across the country, each seeking to apply its own State’s law to conduct in the other States and abroad. The energy companies removed this case to federal court, asserting that federal common law governs tort claims based on interstate or international pollution. The district court upheld removal, holding that such claims arise exclusively under federal law. After the cities amended their complaints to add federal claims, the court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. But the Ninth Circuit held that removal was improper under the well-pleaded complaint rule because the claims were labeled as statelaw claims, and the cities’ amended complaints adding federal claims did not cure that defect. The questions presented are: I. Whether putative state-law tort claims alleging harm from global climate change are removable because they arise under federal law. II. Whether a plaintiff is barred from challenging removal on appeal after curing any jurisdictional defect and litigating the case to final judgment in the district court. @)