It’s the 12 Days of Ballotpedia! Your gift powers the trusted, unbiased information voters need heading into 2026. Donate now!

Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Supreme Court of the United States
Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana
Docket number: 24-813
Term: 2025
Court: United States Supreme Court
Important dates
Argument: January 12, 2026
Court membership
Chief Justice John RobertsClarence ThomasSamuel AlitoSonia SotomayorElena KaganNeil GorsuchBrett KavanaughAmy Coney BarrettKetanji Brown Jackson

Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is a case scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 12, 2026, during the court's October 2025-2026 term.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerns Louisiana's State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978 Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "1. Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute. 2. Whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract."[1]
  • The outcome: The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.

  • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[2]

    • Petitioner: Chevron USA Incorporated, et al.
      • Legal counsel: Paul D. Clement (Clement & Murphy, PLLC) and Michael J. Mazzone (Haynes Boone)
    • Respondent: Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, et al.
      • Legal counsel: Jorge Benjamin Aguinaga (Louisiana Department of Justice), Victor L. Marcello (Talbot, Carmouche & Marcello), Donald W. Price (Louisiana Department of Energy & Natural Resources), and James Blake Canfield (Louisiana Department of Energy and Natural Resources)

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez, a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and the Chicago-Kent College of Law:[3]

    Beginning in 2013, several Louisiana coastal parishes—including Plaquemines Parish and Cameron Parish—filed lawsuits in state court against a consortium of oil and gas companies such as BP America Production Company, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Shell Oil Company, and others. The parishes, joined by Louisiana state agencies and officials, alleged the companies had violated Louisiana’s State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978 (SLCRMA), which requires certain activities within the state’s designated “coastal zone” to comply with an environmental permitting system. Specifically, the parishes claimed the companies engaged in oil and gas exploration, production, and transportation in various “Operational Areas” along the Louisiana coast without securing the proper permits or by violating the conditions of the permits they did have. The complaints further alleged that pre-1980 activities (before SLCRMA’s effective date) were not “lawfully commenced,” and thus not exempt under the Act’s grandfather clause. The parishes seek wide-ranging remedies, including damages and restoration of affected coastal lands.

    The events at issue span decades, with the oil companies’ challenged operations beginning prior to SLCRMA and, in some cases, dating back to World War II. During the war, some defendant companies operated under federal government contracts to refine petroleum products for the war effort, and they argue that some of the crude oil produced in the disputed areas was used to fulfill those contracts. The parishes' claims, however, focus on whether the companies’ activities in the coastal zone were environmentally compliant under Louisiana law, regardless of any federal wartime contracts or regulations.

    After the initial filing in state court, the oil companies have tried multiple times to remove these cases to federal court, invoking various theories of federal jurisdiction, including the federal officer removal statute, based on their World War II-era federal contracts. Each time, the district courts ruled against removal and remanded the cases to state court, concluding that the oil companies did not meet the statutory requirements. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has repeatedly affirmed the remand orders, and the companies now seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court.[4]

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • January 12, 2026: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument.
    • June 16, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • January 29, 2025: Chevron USA Incorporated, et al. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • May 29, 2025: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Louisiana.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[1]

    Questions presented:
    1. Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute. 2. Whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract.[4]

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of the case will be posted here when it is made available.

    Transcript

    A transcript of the case will be posted here when it is made available.

    Outcome

    The case is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    October term 2025-2026

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 6, 2025. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions by mid-June.[5]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes