Supreme Court Takes Up Plaquemines Parish Oil Case

The U.S. Supreme Court has begun hearings in a complicated and contentious case—Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish—originally filed by Louisiana parishes in 2013 against several oil majors, including Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Exxon Mobil Corporation, BP America, ConocoPhillips Company and Shell. At stake are billions of dollars and questions about the future of Louisiana’s extensive oil and gas sector.

The parishes—joined by the state itself in 2016—argue that the companies’ exploration actions during the World War II push for aviation gas were illegal, damaged wetlands and caused coastal erosion. The parishes argue that the companies violated Louisiana’s Coastal Resources Management Act.

The immediate issue is in which venue the case is to be decided, state or federal court. The oil companies’ attorneys argue that the case should be removed to federal court because during World War II, the companies were acting at the direction of the federal government. A 2011 law lets federal officials, agencies or anyone acting under their direction, such as contractors, remove civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions to federal court if their actions are “relating to any act under color of such office.” But the history of such removals to federal court goes all the way back to the War of 1812, when Congress authorized federal customs officers to move shipowners’ claims against them to federal court.

One complication is that the laws the parishes claim the oil companies violated were not passed until decades later. Louisiana’s coastal management program, authorized by the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, operates under the state’s own State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act (SLCRMA) of 1978, with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) approving Louisiana’s program in 1980, establishing the framework for managing its vast coastal wetlands and resources.

The Wall Street Journal has called out the attempts by Louisiana lawyers and judges to “grandfather in” the wartime actions, claiming this “guts” the rule of law and pointing out that law firms involved in the case have donated to judges’ and state politicians’ election campaigns. Still, state courts have forged ahead, with more than 40 cases pending against oil companies, including one in which a judgment of $743 million was issued against Chevron in April 2025.

Daniel Erspamer, head of the Pelican Institute for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Louisiana, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that uncertainty stemming from the lawsuits has already led to declines in oil and gas investment in Louisiana. His organization claims that, since 2009, Louisiana’s offshore production has declined 56 percent, while federal offshore output grew. Employment in the industry has fallen by 37 percent, and since 2014, the state, by his team’s calculations, has lost $1.1 billion in wages and $70 million in foregone tax revenue.

“Put simply, capital investments are moving out of the state to lower-risk regions,” he said. Erspamer bluntly claimed, “This litigation threatens the survival of Louisiana oil and gas production and my state’s ability to grow, attract families and thrive. It is also a threat to Mr. Trump’s energy agenda.”

The U.S. solicitor general has joined with the oil companies in asking for removal to federal court.

Attorneys for the state were allowed to present their case before the Supreme Court with few interruptions, as reported by the media outlet Scotusblog, possibly indicating some sympathy for arguments that might restrict a broad ability to remove state cases to federal court.