In 2013, Plaquemines Parish successfully sued Chevron in state court for environmentally destructive petroleum extraction practices that violated Louisiana’s State and Coastal Resources Management Act. The jury awarded the Parish $745 million in damages. But on April 17, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that Plaquemines Parish’s lawsuit against Chevron belonged in federal court, imperiling the state-level decision.
Although the Plaquemines ruling has been touted as a victory for the oil and gas industry, a closer look shows that any industry celebration is premature. The question before the Supreme Court was arcane and limited: whether Chevron could be considered a federal actor for purposes of moving the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute.
Chevron’s claim to this status rested on a World War II-era contract involving aviation fuel production for the war effort. Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion began with an explicit statement that the court was deciding only this narrow question when it found federal jurisdiction appropriate.
The court’s decision cast no doubt on the merits of the plaintiffs’ case. The $745 million award from the state jury is likely to be repeated in federal court. Moreover, the underlying statutory justification for removal — the federal officer removal statute — is limited to situations where a private company can plausibly claim to be acting as or under a federal officer. Ordinary governmental contractors are unlikely to qualify.
Because this ruling is so narrow, it adds little to the question of whether states and local governments can sue private actors for climate change-related harms in state court. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to clarify this question in the upcoming case of Suncor v. Boulder.
There, the court can make clear that the Plaquemines decision was limited to its unique factual situation involving World War II’s “all hands on deck” mobilization of the private sector. In the absence of such rare situations, suits by local and state governments alleging violations of state laws belong in state court.
Indeed, the array of other cases brought under that same Louisiana law demonstrates that access to state courts is the rule and Chevron v. Plaquemines the exception. To date, local governments in Louisiana have brought 42 cases alleging that oil companies violated the Louisiana State and Coastal Resources Management Act.
These cases challenging unlawful conduct associated with extracting oil along the Gulf Coast continue to move forward (or have been settled). Local governments are successfully using this state law to hold industry actors legally responsible for the damages they have caused in Louisiana, to Louisiana’s coastal ecosystem and to the Louisianans who live there.
These state cases embody federalism’s careful preservation of the state’s authority to protect the health, safety and welfare of its populace. In our constitutional system, states retain their authority to protect residents from violations of the state environmental code and from violations of state tort law, even when they sue oil and gas companies.
Chevron v. Plaquemines does not offer the fossil fuel industry a magical “get out of litigation free” card when states and local governments seek to hold these actors accountable for conduct that violates state law in a fashion that impacts state residents.
In the upcoming Suncor case, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to underscore the importance of federalism. Boulder County, Colorado, sued fossil fuel industry actors for the discrete harms that their products and intentional actions caused to the health, safety and welfare of the county’s residents. This case, brought under state law — and seeking to remedy specific state-based injuries — is not preempted by federal law and should be allowed to continue in state court.
