US Supreme Court sides with oil companies in Louisiana coastal damage litigation

By Nate Raymond

April 17 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday sided with oil companies, including Chevron CVX.N, in their effort to have lawsuits by Louisiana officials seeking to hold them responsible for harming the state's coastal areas moved out of the Bayou State's courthouses and into federal court.

The 8-0 ruling came in one of 42 lawsuits filed more than a decade ago by several Louisiana coastal parishes and the state's attorney general seeking billions of dollars from energy companies to cover restoration and remediation costs.

The court was considering only one of the cases, brought by Plaquemines and Cameron parishes, but the ruling is expected to affect the remaining lawsuits, all of which were filed in 2013.

The lawsuits accuse the companies of violating Louisiana's State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act, which took effect in 1980, by failing to obtain necessary coastal use permits or by violating the terms of permits, resulting in environmental damage to the state’s coastline.

The stakes of the jurisdictional battle over where the cases should be heard were high for the companies, after a Louisiana state court jury in April 2025 concluded Chevron owed $744.6 million to Plaquemines Parish.

Chevron's lawyers argued the lawsuits belong in federal court — a venue generally seen as more favorable to corporate defendants — as they relate to activities undertaken to fulfill U.S. government refinery contracts during World War Two.

They cited a statute that grants federal jurisdiction over lawsuits against anyone acting under a federal officer, such as a contractor, "for or relating to any act under color of such office." The "relating to" language was added in 2011, which Chevron's lawyers said broadened the standard in its favor.

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, agreed, saying Chevron's production of crude oil during World War Two related to its wartime aviation-gasoline refining for the military.

"Chevron's case fits comfortably within the ordinary meaning of a suit 'relating to' the performance of federal duties," he wrote.

The ruling reversed a decision by a 2-1 panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had rejected that argument in 2024 when it held that the companies' oil exploration and production activities were unrelated to the companies' contracted refining operations.

The Trump administration backed the companies' appeal to the Supreme Court, despite normally being closely allied with Louisiana's Republican leadership, which accused the companies of polluting the state's marsh.

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson did not join Thomas' opinion but concurred in the judgment, saying that while she agreed the lawsuit could be removed to federal court, she thought the removal statute imposed a more stringent standard than the majority found.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the ruling. He recused himself ahead of December arguments in the case, citing his stock holdings in ConocoPhillips. One of its subsidiaries is a defendant in the litigation.

The case is Chevron USA Incorporated, et al., v. Plaquemines Parish, et al., U.S. Supreme Court, No. 24-813.

For Chevron: Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy

For Louisiana: Solicitor General Ben Aguinaga

For the U.S. government: Assistant Solicitor General Aaron Roper

Read more:

US Supreme Court wrestles with Louisiana communities' lawsuits against oil companies

US Supreme Court to hear Chevron, Exxon appeal over Louisiana coastal damage