No. 19-1189 In the Supreme Court of the United States BP P.L.C., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS PETER D. KEISLER KANNON K. SHANMUGAM C. FREDERICK BECKNER III Counsel of Record SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP WILLIAM T. MARKS 1501 K Street, N.W. TANYA S. MANNO Washington, DC 20005 E. GARRETT WEST PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR. WHARTON & GARRISON LLP THOMAS G. HUNGAR 2001 K Street, N.W. GIBSON, DUNN Washington, DC 20006 & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut (202) 223-7300
[email protected] Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 THEODORE V. WELLS, JR. DAVID C. FREDERICK DANIEL J. TOAL BRENDAN J. CRIMMINS ADAM P. SAVITT DANIEL S. SEVERSON PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C. 1285 Avenue of the Americas 1615 M Street, N.W., New York, NY 10019 Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 (additional counsel on signature page) QUESTION PRESENTED Section 1447(d) of Title 28 of the United States Code generally precludes appellate review of an order remand- ing a removed case to state court. But Section 1447(d) ex- pressly provides that an “order remanding a case * * * removed pursuant to” the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1443, “shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.” Some courts of appeals have interpreted Section 1447(d) to permit appellate review of any issue encompassed in a district court’s remand order where the removing defend- ant premised removal in part on the federal-officer or civil-rights removal statutes.