The U.S. Supreme Court is set to deliberate on a contentious legal battle surrounding the accountability of oil and gas companies for the degradation of the Louisiana coast as it hears Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. The core issue in this case is whether such cases, initially filed in state courts, can be transferred to federal court under the federal officer removal statute.
More than fifty years ago, Congress promised federal funding to states that developed coastal management programs adhering to federal guidelines, leading to Louisiana’s 1980 adoption of the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act (SLCRMA). Under this law, actions in coastal zones requiring permits also opened the avenue for lawsuits if such permits were not properly obtained or adhered to.
Starting in 2013, Louisiana parishes brought forward 42 lawsuits against oil and gas firms, citing non-compliance with SLCRMA. The companies sought refuge under federal jurisdiction via the federal officer removal statute, arguing their antecedents’ contracts with the federal government during World War II provided such federal coverage. A divided decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit previously rebuffed these overtures, ruling that the companies failed to demonstrate a direct connection between federal contracts and the contested activities.
The companies have now taken their arguments to the Supreme Court, stating that wartime activities aimed at fulfilling federal directives are sufficient grounds for federal court transfer. They emphasize the broad intentions of Congress, particularly after the 2011 amendment of the statute, which sought to ensure federal jurisdiction over disputes involving national interests. The amendment was designed to broaden the types of cases eligible for federal-officer removal.
Both the parishes and Louisiana maintain that the crux of the lawsuits revolves around crude oil production, which was not federally directed. The state expressed concern over what it calls the “mix-and-match theory of removal.”
The ultimate decision in this case, expected by summer, could set noteworthy precedents for how federal contractor liability is determined, potentially influencing the handling of similar environmental and wartime activity cases henceforth. To delve deeper, the full coverage of this case is available on SCOTUSblog.