The Supreme Court heard oral arguments at the start of the week in Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish to determine whether a state court was the proper forum for a recent landmark Louisiana court case. The Court’s decision is bound to affect dozens of identical lawsuits that are progressing through the state-court system.

Six coastal parishes in Louisiana filed 43 lawsuits against the oil and gas industry beginning in 2013, claiming that unpermitted actions polluted marshlands and contributed to erosion. Plaquemines Parish v. Chevron USA, Inc. was the first lawsuit to reach a jury, with the parish winning a $745 million judgment against Chevron last April.

The Supreme Court’s review of Chevron’s petition for a writ of certiorari is examining a narrow legal point—whether the Fifth Circuit interpreted the federal officer removal statute correctly. At its core, the dispute turns on how closely a state-court lawsuit must be connected to federally directed actions to qualify for removal to federal court.

Chevron has argued that the federal court is the proper forum, since the conduct at the center of the alleged violations traces back to federally directed activities in providing aviation fuel (“avgas”) to the U.S. military during WWII.

Up to this point, attorneys for the parishes have been successful in claiming that only the refinement of avgas was contracted. As a result, without a clear federal directive for exploration and drilling activities, the defendants fail the removal test.

Aaron Roper, Assistant to the Solicitor General, offered support for Chevron’s right to removal: “[W]hen we are talking about liability for conduct that the federal government directed during WWII, that is a question that should be resolved in federal court.” Chevron’s counsel, Paul Clement, explains that removal is important for federal contractors because there are issues “that are nationally important but locally unpopular.” Simply put, state and federal interests do not always align.

Justice Kavanaugh highlighted this conflict between state and federal interests when he summarized an argument made in the amicus brief from General Meyers and Admiral Mullen, two former Joint Chiefs of Staff: “[T]he Fifth Circuit’s approach would set a dangerous precedent that could adversely impact our national security, discouraging private parties from taking direction from federal officers for fear of future liability.” Although this was posed as an opportunity for the respondent to address the cited amicus brief, and not explicitly as an affirmation of their argument, Justice Kavanaugh did note that weighing all implications for national security is necessary, especially after the September 11 attacks.

The distinction between federally contracted actions and private actions rests on a reading of the “causal-nexus” requirement of the federal officer removal statute. The Removal Clarification Act of 2011 (RCA) altered a key test for removal, changing lawsuits “for” actions taken under federal direction to lawsuits “relating to” said actions. All sides agree that Congress intended to expand the statute's reach with this change, but there is no agreement on whether the RCA removed a heightened causation standard that several courts had adopted.

Benjamin Aguiñaga, Louisiana’s solicitor general, told the court that the historical record fails to support Chevron’s defense that its work refining avgas for the war effort necessitated releasing billions of gallons of produced water, a by-product of drilling, into the coastal marshes. He stated that 70% of crude oil production was going to civilian use—although he failed to note this would have included civilian industries supporting the war effort—and that there was already an oversupply of crude oil. Therefore, drilling and exploration in the Louisiana delta were not essential for refining avgas for the military.

The merits of Plaquemines Parish’s lawsuit were not considered by the Court and will eventually be reexamined, either on appeal in state court or in federal court. Of course, both parties gain advantages in their preferred forum; but as Clement reminded the court, state law will be the definitive authority, even if a motion for removal to federal court is granted.

The justices asked several questions about the Fifth Circuit’s use of a “more stringent” causal-nexus test for Chevron’s motion for removal. Justice Jackson appeared to contest the appellate court's introduction of a contractual directive and asserted “that’s what seems wrong about the Fifth Circuit’s test.”

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill contends that these coastal lawsuits are pollution cases that belong in state courts, emphasizing that the federal government “did not contract for the production of oil and gas.”

Following the oral arguments, Chevron spokesperson Bill Turenne welcomed the court’s intervention, saying: “The Supreme Court underscored the importance of this case in granting review and in the attention it paid to the issues in today’s argument. Chevron remains confident that a federal court is the proper forum for these cases and looks forward to the Court’s decision.”

A decision is expected by the end of June 2026.