WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday weighed whether Chevron can move Louisiana wetlands lawsuits out of state court and into federal court after a jury ordered the company to pay $744.6 million to Plaquemines Parish. Chevron says the claims are tied to World War II-era federal contracts for aviation fuel, a link it argues triggers a federal removal law, Jan. 12, 2026.
The Supreme Court’s ruling, expected by June, could shape where more than 40 related coastal suits are litigated and how quickly they move, with Louisiana parishes seeking billions for restoration and remediation costs. Coverage of the oral arguments in a Reuters report from the courtroom described the case as a narrow, high-stakes fight over jurisdiction rather than a replay of the wetlands verdict.
Supreme Court tests the “relating to” hook in contractor removals
Chevron, Exxon Mobil and other producers want the justices to read the federal-officer removal statute broadly, arguing they should be able to move the parish suits into federal court because their predecessors refined high-octane aviation gasoline for the U.S. government during World War II and produced crude oil to fulfill those contracts. The dispute turns on how far Congress went when it added “for or relating to” language to the statute in 2011, an issue summarized in Cornell’s Legal Information Institute case bulletin.
Louisiana’s attorneys counter that the parishes sued under state coastal-permitting rules for activities in the marshes — including dredging canals, operating wells and disposing of produced water, a wastewater byproduct of oil and gas extraction — that were not directed by federal contracts. During argument, Chief Justice John Roberts told Chevron lawyer Paul Clement, “You’re right, obviously, that ‘relating to’ is very broad, but it’s hard to see where you stop,” pressing him on whether the companies’ theory would stretch the law to cover remote, downstream connections.
Several justices probed whether a decision favoring the oil companies could ripple beyond Louisiana to other government contractors. Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguinaga defended state-court jurisdiction and said the venue battle is central to the state’s coastal push: “That’s why this is such a massive deal for the state of Louisiana.”
Justice Samuel Alito did not participate after recusing himself because of investments tied to ConocoPhillips, whose subsidiary is involved in related coastal litigation. The Trump administration backed the oil companies’ position, despite Louisiana’s Republican leadership supporting the parish suits.
How the Supreme Court venue battle grew out of years of coastal suits
The litigation traces to 2013, when coastal parishes filed 42 suits accusing oil and gas companies of violating Louisiana’s State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act by operating without required coastal use permits or failing to restore work sites. A SCOTUSblog preview laid out how those cases evolved into a long-running tug-of-war over whether the disputes should stay in parish courthouses or move to federal court.
The Supreme Court agreed in June 2025 to hear the companies’ appeal after lower courts kept two of the parish cases in state court, Reuters reported when the justices granted review. The stakes grew in April 2025, when a Plaquemines Parish jury ordered Chevron to pay $744.6 million — including $575 million for land loss and $161 million for contamination — as reported by The Associated Press.
Even before the Plaquemines verdict, venue disputes had reached Washington. In November 2023, the Supreme Court declined to pause a Cameron Parish coastal-erosion trial after oil companies argued that local jurors could not be impartial, Reuters reported.
What comes next at the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is expected to rule by June. A decision for Chevron could send key parish cases into federal court, potentially resetting timelines and shaping how other federal contractors argue for a federal forum; a loss would keep the Louisiana suits in state court as appeals continue from the $744.6 million verdict. Case background and the questions presented are collected on the Oyez case page.
