A somewhat convoluted and obscure case currently before the Supreme Court could nonetheless have drastic implications for the future of the U.S. oil and gas industry – and the principle of federalism itself. Depending on the outcome, oil and gas companies could be forced to pay massive fines for drilling activities nearly a century ago that helped the United States win World War II.
The case is titled Chevron USA v. Plaquemines Parish. It began all the way back in 2013 when several Louisiana parishes (the primary local government subdivisions in the state) filed suit against Chevron and other oil and gas companies in state court. The plaintiffs alleged that the oil companies’ exploration, production, and related activities in coastal zones damaged wetlands and waterways. The parishes sought monetary compensation for the alleged harm.
The drilling activity at issue in the case came all the way back during World War II. Like many companies, Chevron used its expertise to help produce valuable resources for the U.S. military – in this case, aviation fuel. It did so under a federal contract to extract oil from Louisiana’s coasts. For years, no one batted an eye at this valuable service.
Fast forward to 1980, when Louisiana passed a statute requiring new permits for all coastal projects. Critically, however, the statute included a “grandfather clause” exempting projects that began before the law passed. But in 2018, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources suddenly switched course and now states that the oil companies should not get the benefit of the exemption.
Enter unscrupulous trial attorneys who saw the shift as a lucrative opportunity to weaponize state courts against the oil companies – yet another entry into the rapidly expanding genre of climate lawfare against energy producers. Lawsuits against the oil companies for production activities that fueled American planes during World War II have netted more than $740 million in state courts so far.
As the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board explains, the allegations that the oil companies are responsible for coastal erosion are based on flimsy science at best. The scientific analysis relied on by the state leaves out the important context of why there is flooding: “The main culprits are storms and geography, not oil and gas drilling.”
“The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also contributed by leveeing the Mississippi River to prevent flooding, which had the unintended effect of preventing wetlands from naturally regenerating,” the Board writes.
Moreover, the attorneys who sued Chevron and won in state court “gave nearly $15,000 to the state judge who presided over the case,” according to the Washington Free Beacon. Donations went to state judge Michael Clement just months after attorneys filed the initial lawsuit “in Clement’s judicial district.”
The donations and ensuing judgment reek of a “kangaroo court,” according to former Attorney General William Barr, who served under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Donald Trump.
“The whole thing is set up as a kangaroo court. The whole structure of this was set up to, basically, pander to the interests of these plaintiffs’ lawyers,” Barr told the Free Beacon. “You have all these different cases with these guys getting big payouts if they can force a settlement.”
“The dogs are being let loose on these companies for political reasons,” Barr said.
Barr’s concerns are precisely why Chevron and its co-defendants in the Louisiana case have appealed to the Supreme Court. They argue that the parishes’ litigation must be brought in federal court, not state courts.
Chevron’s case centers on something called the “federal officer removal statute” – an 1812 law passed to avoid what appears to be taking place in Louisiana. That statute gives federal courts the power to hear state court cases filed against “any officer (or any person acting under that officer) or the United States or of an agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office.”
In other words, lawsuits against federal officials and contractors must be heard in federal courts. The purpose of this statute is to prevent state courts that are hostile to certain federal activities from bogging down those activities in endless litigation. The law has been upheld for more than two centuries for good reason – to preserve the principle of federalism and the supremacy of federal law.
The Supreme Court agreed to take up the case, and eight of the nine justices heard oral arguments on January 12. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself because he has stock holdings in ConocoPhillips, which may be impacted by the decision.
Daniel Erspamer, CEO of the conservative Pelican Institute for Public Policy, has warned of the potential consequences for Louisiana and the country if the Supreme Court does not stop this effort. He wrote that there are “more than 40 additional cases pending in state courts,” all of which could produce “staggering” damages. Presumably, more lawsuits would be filed if the Supreme Court gives them the green light.
“This litigation threatens the survival of Louisiana oil and gas production and my state’s ability to grow, attract families, and thrive,” Erspamer warned. “It is also a threat to Mr. Trump’s energy agenda.”
As he points out, this isn’t just a Louisiana problem. A ruling against Chevron will open a floodgate of copycat lawsuits against any company that could be blamed – whether fairly or not – for environmental concerns, even for actions taken many decades ago.
At the conclusion of oral arguments, it appeared uncertain which direction the justices were leaning toward ruling in. But if they hope to uphold a nearly two-century-old precedent protecting legitimate federal government activity from becoming mired in a flood of litigation in state courts, the decision should be an easy one.
AMAC Newsline contributor Matt Lamb is an associate editor for The College Fix. He previously worked for Students for Life of America, Students for Life Action, and Turning Point USA. He previously interned for Open the Books. His writing has also appeared in the Washington Examiner, The Federalist, LifeSiteNews, Human Life Review, Headline USA, and other outlets. The opinions expressed are his own. Follow him @mattlamb22 on X.
This lawsuit is no different from others such as “the HOT Coffee incident with McDonalds or giving a mass amount of money to relatives of slaves”. Verdicts that have gone against good rationality are from “kangaroo” courts and not surprised that judges from such verdicts have received “compensation” for their rulings. The nightmare continues for these ridiculous rulings as they continue to happen at all levels of the judiciary system.
How unpatriotic. Some attorneys are bottom feeders.
Expo Facto should apply. Trying to extract money 80+ years after the fact is a bit ridiculous and downright unpatriotic considering it was wartime and the government wanted them to do it.
Is there no end to the ridiculous search that attorneys have for ludicrous lawsuits? Is there no end to the “creation” of legislation that judges participate in?
This has no merit and should be dismissed in court outright. Pathetic.
Like I have said many times before, the legal profession is no different than organized crime, except the Mafia has some expectations of their members!
The majority of lawyers have EARNED their reputations as being evil, corrupt, lying, greedy, moral-less vipers. This factual reality began thousands of years ago, back even before the days of Christ. They are mentioned in the Bible many times from being just as described above.
And guess what? NOTHING HAS CHANGED. THEY’D SUE THEIR OWN MOTHER IF IT MEANT MAKING DIRTY MONEY FROM IT.
That dirty lowlifes judge should be permanently removed from the bench and be forced to return the payout he received, plus interest.
Further, the SCOTUS should not only dismiss this case and all future cases related to this, but also rule that ALL prior case monies, including court costs, should be returned to the oil companies.
Louisiana needs to demolish New Orleans and return the land to nature if they’re serious about their concerns for the environment. In fact, that logic applies to any built structure on the planet. Definitely need to exterminate any beavers. These pests are always changing the environment and causing flooding.
A Marxist attempt at sowing discord and weakening the status of the capitalist system in the US. This illustrates the lack of common sense on the left as they try to lead us on The Road To Serfdom.
This is soooooo, freaking stupid. Going back to the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s to sue. May those attorneys roast in the place where the devil lives!! Oh, I think the McDonald’s thing was successfully settled on appeal for a reasonable amount. I think the complainant was taking a lot of heat from the public for being so “stooopid”. Plus Mickey D’s attorneys were going to stretch this thing out in the courts for years if need be. This is where the defense attorneys are heroes to fight against such malicious lawsuits.
Of course this is ridiculous but we all have learned that attorneys and judges ranks include all types of criminals and seems they never get time in jail for their crimes. I cannot imagine what this world would be like now if the U.S. had not joined the world to save the world from a monster like Hitler.
There are always shyster lawyers out to make some bucks on the back of working people! Maybe they should file a suit with Germany or Japan instead!
My understanding is that many countries STILL owe us money from debts acquired during WW2. Let them pay this and leave our Oil Companies alone!
At this time, I am glad that my GREATEST GENERATION parents and in-laws are not here to see how low that Americans & lawyers have stopped for greed of money.
As Charles notes below, this sounds like an ILLEGAL and illogical ex post facto revision to a decades-old law to eliminate the protection against the law being retroactively applied to previously approved and legal exploration and extraction activities. It reflects the same mindset that says that US citizens who didn’t even have family in the USA prior to 1867 are liable to pay “reparations” to the many generations-distant descendants of people brought into the US as slaves. It is neither within English common law, Constitutional law [violating Article I, Section 9, para 3], or classical legal theory [e.g., Blackstone] that laws can be revised and then applied back in time to make illegal and punishable actions that were legal at the time they were done. Bottom Line: this is another case of “big pockets” syndrome [“poor” jurisdictions, organizations, or individuals suing to make a fortune for themselves at the expense of law-abiding, productive organizations/businesses/individuals. The Federal Courts NEED to put an end to this illogical and potentially very destructive attempt to overturn centuries of Constitutional precedent.
I am not a fan of oil and gas producers but they perform necessary services. Such a ridiculous fine would cost us all.
EPA operating at it’s worst! What if Chevron had not produced the necessary product to help WWII?
They would not have a lawsuit against them today, because our country would not be the USA!
Quit going back decades to extract money for past defense of our country during WWII.
Stop chasing the $$$, it is not what is important! The $$$ is known as greed!
Ya cain’t make this BS up! Ya just cain’t…..
First off, any judge accepting bribes for a decision should be immediately impeached and removed from the bench! SCOTUS needs to grow a pair and stop all this TODAY! Lawyers bringing suits like this should be forced to pay the defendants’ expenses of defending themselves!
Lawyers have become whores. My Dad was in WWII. Lawyer’s can’t go any lower, scumbags!
Since the harm was done to win WW2 the Parishes should sue Der Fuerher, il Duce, the Emperor, and the Thousand Year Reich and Greater East Asia Co Prosperityuy Sphere. Had they won the Court would convene in some concentration extermination camp.
Were I an oil company, I wouldn’t send a drop to Louisiana…that goes for all of them. You don’t like the benefits the oil and gas industry supply? Then we will pull out of their state. How long before people with pitch forks go after those lawyers who filed this suit? Let them all ride horses in that state and burn wood to heat and cook.
Blue parishes, Red’s state need to gerrymander the state to get rid of these blue plagues,
Of course the judge didn’t recluse himself for conflict of interest.
Presentism again! We cannot let this happen. I live in Baytown, TX where the world’s largest refinery was during WWII. FDR practically blackmailed Humble Oil & Refining (now ExxonMobil) into making ONLY the TNT and Rubber for the war. Humble had to get their labor union and management to figure out how to keep all their employees, yet make only those two things. They all agreed to go to 3/4 pay in order to keep their jobs. Humble mgmt had spents decades building a good reliable safe workforce because that’s the only way the refinery could operate safely long term, and they did not want to lose their workers, having already lost many to the war effort as soldiers. Had they not figured out to do that, FDR had promised to nationalize the industry, so they were forced to. I bet Chevron got the same conversation. So, FDR was the cause (and for a very good reason). THEY SHOULD SUE FDR, aka the federal gov’t! But they should sue nobody, because back then it was the only reasonable thing to do. Maybe the federal gov’t should have come in afterwards and repaired.
So they would rather be Hitler’s rule than winning freedom. This is so stupid!!
So they would rather be under Hitler’s rule than winning freedom. This is so stupid!!
“The purpose of this statute is to prevent state courts that are hostile to certain federal activities from bogging down those activities in endless litigation.” What if the federal action is not authorized by the Constitution? Should federal law prevail over the States even when the federal act is not constitutional? How does having the federal government usurp state authority preserve the principle of federalism? Is the federal government the judge of its limitations; that is, is the federal government the final authority in deciding the constitutionality of its acts?
Lawsuits may be the end of America. People sue for anything & it is greed for the dollar with no understanding of the outcomes. How did these people want WWII to end or did they want it to go on forever? And the current WH administration is leading the pack in sue for everything & hope the other party does not have enough money to keep fighting.