...
By Jenna Sundel
News Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sided with Chevron in a closely watched Louisiana coastal‑damage case, with two liberal justices joining conservative Justice Clarence Thomas in a unanimous ruling that allows the oil giant to keep the dispute in federal court. The decision centers on whether Chevron’s World War II–era oil production, carried out under federal direction, is shielded by a wartime refinery statute and federal officer removal law.
Liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor joined Thomas’ majority opinion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with the outcome but wrote separately, cautioning against an overly broad reading of the statute. There were no dissents, and Justice Samuel Alito did not participate.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from lawsuits filed in 2013 by Louisiana parishes against oil and gas companies under the 1978 State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act, which prohibited certain uses of Louisiana’s coastal area, including oil production, without a permit.
Read More on News
An expert report filed by Plaquemines Parish "made clear" that it intended to challenge some defendants' crude oil production during World War II, the court said. The report alleged that Chevron did not use steel tanks instead of earthen pits, should not have used vertical-drilling methods and failed to equip fields with sufficient roads, instead using canals.
Chevron removed the lawsuit under the federal officer removal statute, which authorizes removal of state court lawsuits against federal officers or persons “acting under” them “for or relating to any act under color of such office." It argued the oil production challenged in the lawsuit was “for or relating to” Chevron’s wartime refining of crude oil into aviation gasoline for the U. S. military.
The court ruled that Chevron satisfied the “relating to” requirement of the federal officer removal statute.
"Chevron’s case fits comfortably within the ordinary meaning of a suit 'relating to' the performance of federal duties. Chevron has plausibly alleged a close relationship between its challenged conduct and the performance of its federal duties—not a tenuous, remote, or peripheral one," Thomas wrote.
Jackson said the Supreme Court correctly held that the lawsuit is “for or relating to” Chevron’s acts done “under color of [federal] office" but said she disagrees that the “for or relating to” wording in the federal officer removal statute requires only an indirect relationship between the conduct challenged in the lawsuit and the associated federal duties.
What’s Happening Now
The Supreme Court vacated a Fifth Circuit ruling and sent the case back to the appeals court, finding that Chevron properly moved the lawsuit to federal court under the federal officer removal statute. The ruling does not address Chevron’s underlying liability, including a prior state jury verdict that ordered the company to pay roughly $740 million for coastal restoration, but it reshapes where and how the claims can be litigated.
Chevron and other oil and gas companies, backed by President Donald Trump's administration, have denied responsibility for land loss in Louisiana and argue it’s wrong to sue them for actions taken before state environmental regulations were in place.
Louisiana’s coastal parishes have lost more than 2,000 square miles of land over the past century, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, which has also identified oil and gas infrastructure as a major cause.
...
What’s Next
The Fifth Circuit will now reexamine the case using the Supreme Court’s guidance, a move that could determine whether the parish lawsuit—and related claims seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup damages—can proceed in federal court. The outcome may also influence similar coastal and environmental cases tied to historical oil and gas activity conducted under wartime or federal direction.
How Many Supreme Court Justices are there?
There are nine Supreme Court justices, six conservatives and three liberals. The liberal justices are Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson. The conservatives are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
Who Appoints Supreme Court Justices?
The president appoints Supreme Court justices, and the Senate confirms them. Trump appointed Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.
This article includes reporting by The Associated Press.
Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines