Supreme Court Sides With Chevron in Fight Over Wetlands Suits
Source: Bloomberg Law
The US Supreme Court sided with Chevron Corp. in a protracted fight over jurisdiction stemming from the state of Louisiana’s lawsuits seeking to hold the oil and gas industry legally responsible for the rapid erosion of its coastal wetlands.
The justices in 8-0 decision ruled that Chevron had plausibly alleged the conduct its accused of related to oil refining activities carried out on behalf of the federal government during World War II, and therefore is sufficient to remove Louisiana’s case from state to federal court.
The opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, reversed a decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and remanded it for further proceedings. Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in oral arguments due to a conflict of interest.
The case is Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, U.S., 24-813, 4/17/26
Read more: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-sides-with-chevron-in-fight-over-wetlands-suits
= new reply since forum marked as read
Work barges build a breakwater along the northeastern coast of Lake Pontchartrain in Tangipahoa Parish in an undated photograph. Constructed as part of a $13.5 million project through the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority and parish government, rock walls are designed to break up wave action and capture sediment to protect the swamp shoreline of the critical Manchac land bridge separating Lakes Pontchartrain and Maurepas. Photo provided by Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority
BY MARK BALLARD | Staff writer
30 mins ago
WASHINGTON – A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court undermined Friday a huge jury verdict from Plaquemines Parish and more than 40 lawsuits filed by local, parish and state governments seeking recompense from the oil companies they claim tore up Louisiana’s coastal marshes in the search for fossil fuels.
The 8-0 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish is a narrow ruling on a technical legal issue. It essentially requires federal courts, rather than state district courts, to decide claims that companies should pay for alleged pollution and hastened erosion along the coastline. ... Justice Samuel Alito, the ninth member of the high court, didn’t participate because he owned stock in one of the energy companies.
Thomas and the justices found that lower federal courts and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals were incorrect in their readings of the federal removal law. The case was returned to the 5th Circuit. ... The justices didn’t look directly at a $745 million state district court jury verdict in Plaquemines Parish against Chevron USA. But the high court’s new definitions for the federal removal law likely would require the case to be retried in federal district court.
More broadly, the court’s interpretation impacts litigation across the nation arising against private companies contracted with the federal government should be shielded from local bias for damage caused in local communities.
{snip}
