Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana

Since 2013, Louisiana's coastal parishes have sued oil and gas companies in state court under a 1978 state law requiring permits for activities in the state's coastal zone, seeking damages for decades of erosion and land loss. 

Plaquemines Parish's suit against Chevron reached back to the company's crude-oil production practices during World War II, when Chevron's predecessor drilled using earthen pits and canals rather than steel tanks and roads. Chevron wanted the case moved out of Louisiana state court and into federal court, arguing that its wartime oil production was tied to a federal contract to refine aviation gasoline for the military.

The relevant law is the federal officer removal statute, which lets a federal officer, or someone "acting under" one, move a state lawsuit into federal court when the suit is "for or relating to" actions taken under color of that federal role. 

The district court allowed removal, but the Fifth Circuit reversed, reading the statute narrowly to require that the federal government have specifically directed the exact conduct being challenged. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, heard oral argument on January 12, 2026, and issued its opinion, written by Justice Thomas, on April 17, 2026. Justice Alito did not participate in the case.

Chevron argued that Congress broadened the removal statute in 2011 specifically to replace a strict "causal nexus" test with a looser "relating to" standard, and that its wartime crude-oil production was closely tied to a Petroleum Administration for War program that set avgas pricing, granted tax exemptions, and allocated crude oil to refineries like Chevron's predecessor to meet military output targets. 

The parishes argued that the government never actually directed Chevron's specific drilling and land-use practices, such as using earthen pits or canals, so those choices were the company's alone, not something done "under" a federal officer's direction.

A unanimous Court, with Alito recused, sided with Chevron. Thomas's opinion held that the statute's "relating to" language requires only a connection that isn't "tenuous, remote, or peripheral," not proof that the federal government specifically required or caused the exact conduct being sued over. Because Chevron's crude-oil production was closely tied to a wartime program that shaped pricing, allocation, and output requirements for avgas refining, the connection was close enough. 

Justice Jackson wrote separately, agreeing with the outcome but taking a different analytical path. The decision widens the door for federal contractors, of which there are thousands operating under wartime, defense, and other federal programs, to move state-court suits touching their government work into federal court, a venue widely seen as more favorable to corporate defendants than state courts.