thank you your honor in may please the court global warming is a complex important problem that is what it's all states and all nations and all people around the world but it raises issues of national and international raise three contractual relationships you mentioned global warming is a worm but it is in interstate it's international and the supreme court has held over and over again some areas some positive action because of their interstate international char claims arise under federal law federal common law and the plaintiffs are in the district court found we were relating a preemption argument but we're not we're arguing that step one under the standard well decision is and just look at the allegations this poor involves well gas production around the united states that will land and everywhere else around the world in other countries all races foreign policy question international negotiations a lot like preemption dominie's sand per se these are things of follow they have to go to federal court and sounds like preemption we do have a preemption are going your honor but that relates to the clean air act here and  my my guiding case in this analysis really in terms of the stress of agression is i go back to the standard oil case where which was cited in a he or the government are a view that federal common law should govern it's inconceivable that the court intended that with that ruling to turn loose fifty states under these vague nuisance type plans to start regulating local activity that's why we believe this is a federal issue belongs in federal to share and represent the city of baltimore the courts review is limited to federal officer issue and there is no federal officer jurisdiction and we can talk about with interest well go opposing counsel's argument does have some intuitive appeal in as much as when you're talking about global impact how and why does a single state get to preside over that case that this case is not about emissions it's not about it a challenge to any regulation federal or state challenge to any permit it's not a challenge to treat your overall promotion all marketing of products these companies knew would cause untold are these cases are no more about emissions or regulation of the emissions under the clean air act or otherwise and those are matters of traditional state concern the fact that it's a large case that involves actions in many places doesn't make it a matter of federal issues and we know that boundaries of the single state and in the agent orange case the nd circuit state law not federal law governing class action or cases on behalf of millions of be unknown veterans against the manufacturers of each and foreign despite the federal interest both in the production and manufacture of agent poured in and of course in the health of the veterans there is no federal interest in uniformity so the court for its own think the fact that application this court or any other courts numerous previous holding that courts of appeals only have jurisdiction to review those bases for removal expressly preempt exempted from the general statutory bar for going beyond the  what was previously the civil rights exception and now includes the federal officer exception the rule before the clarification act was unanimous in every certain concluding this one in the  looked at the issue raising in numerated exception did not extend the ability of the court to look at any other issue compassed within an order and i think the language is not the same between give rise to review of all the other issues the or other asserted grounds for a what's your response to opposing councils federal officer jurisdiction with regard to the n and in your reading from that contract between the navy and standard oil that's correct your honor so this is this is a limitation of the contract the purpose of the contract and as the standard different standard o they have not use it country as you just said you haven't gotten a congressional approval i don't know your honor whether they ever got congressional approval or not there's nothing in the record or even one man or the other but it seems it would be this st refusal thing would make their argument on our leader because it looks like from the record oil companies are simply profiting for their own purposes that's right judge floyd and in fact if you go to the other section they cite which is misused by them in both brief and today before your honor it joined appendix two hundred and fifty this is also in the same contract it's section he and this is the clause that the defendants claim the navy requires standard oil produced fifteen thousand dollars barrels a day and they say this is evidence of strict control it's not what this contract said is that until standard receives its share of production from this is on then they have to manage the reserve to maintain its  contract stander could have complied with the contract without ever extracting a single barrel of oil so this contract doesn't provide evidence that that the navy ever wired the defendants to do anything with respect to this now that the outer continental shelf lead allowed them to but it didn't require them to that's correct judge that or it allowed them to extract an undifferentiated interest should take it ship does make a difference if the government chose by congressional approval to exercise that option and it couldn't be done without the private companies all company actually with the contract provides is that the need can either do it itself or ask but it doesn't require shop so there's nothing in the record there would suggest to you and me as well the government even has the capacity facto federal officers because they're the only ones that have the capacity to do it seems to pause his capacity and authority i see government has the authority but doesn't have the capacity enough to i think the point that they were making even if it has not been exercised if it is or if it will be there they still would have to do it the government couldn't do it it there's nothing in the record ok just not where well what the contract says is that it's the navy right do it were adopted it would open the floodgates to ole slew of rd parties operating on federal lands under federal permits and regulations leases as designated federal agents which they're not and then the final of the commercial provision of these will be asked under the next contract are simply providing off the shelf contracts and us as the th circuit held in the state of washington case that doesn't implicate any federal officer concerns there's there's also stepping back a moment two points i think the st is that there's nothing about this relationship that bears government is directing the companies to do this and this stands and script contrast to the situation in sawyer or some of the other government contractors that's this cases where failure to warn planes part of the sawyer case as well as the wilkinson case that the supreme court referred to and why you have a much higher degree of relationship there in the final point is just this lack of causal connection t global emissions and that defendants are responsible for certain shares overall but that is merely a data point in understanding that since the claim remember that we're looking at a manufacturer's billet here and the point is that we raised a reasonable consumer's expectation standard and the claim is that the false and misleading conduct by these defendants deprive an ordinary reasonable consumer of the ability to understand and that it was the practice for that reason carolina case honour's this is a big case it's an important case i think both sides see on that but it does not involve the regulation of emissions it involves matters that are of course the competency and any matters of federal preemption that are but he says it the complaint doesn't involve the regulation of the admissions that rather it is about as the complaint alleges the defendants engaging in a coordinated multifamily effort to conceal government requires that it be produced including on all our cars the city of baltimore is burning a lot of fossil fuels so it's so different this is a socially useful product that we all d the pinned on for our modern civilization and that's what they're cha in that maybe contract reading from the cite the paragraph eight or section eight it certainly appears as though the navy didn't require standard oil to extract produce to this day is producing and there's a statute on our connell shelf that says we want to extract these resources so we can defend our national security to protect our economy other alternative energy sources we should all be looking at them in ways t