Allies of fossil fuel companies are celebrating the development as a step toward “stopping the endless wave” of lawsuits against the climate-wrecking industry.
Climate justice campaigners march from the Shell Center to Trafalgar Square on November 12, 2022 in London, England.
(Photo by Mark Kerrison/In Pictures via Getty Images)
Jessica Corbett
Apr 17, 2026
COMMON DREAMS
US fossil fuel giants have long sought to shift litigation over industry harms from state to friendly federal courts, and the country’s top court unanimously handed polluters a big win on Friday, allowing such a move in a case centered on environmental damage in coastal Louisiana.
Cases can be removed from state court when they are against federal officers or persons “acting under” them, “for or relating to any act under color of such office.” Although the US Supreme Court has previously rejected multiple removals requested by Big Oil, the justices sided with the industry in Chevron USA v. Plaquemines Parish.
The company argued that its challenged production was sufficiently related to its contractual duties to refine crude oil into aviation gasoline, or avgas, for the US military during World War II. A federal district judge and the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected Chevron’s argument, but the high court bought it.
“Chevron has plausibly alleged a close relationship between its challenged conduct and the performance of its federal duties—not a tenuous, remote, or peripheral one,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson penned a concurring opinion.
Justice Samuel Alito recused himself shortly before arguments. As with some other cases involving Big Oil, he bowed out due to his stock in ConocoPhillips, whose subsidiary Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company is involved in the case at the district court level.
This fight before the high court stemmed from dozens of cases filed over a decade ago. As NOLA.com detailed Friday:
In 2013, a group of local parishes and the state filed 42 lawsuits against energy companies whose predecessors sought and produced crude during World War II. They argued that the oil and gas companies damaged wetlands and failed to get or comply with the proper permits.
After a three-week trial, a Plaquemines Parish jury sided with the state in one of those cases and awarded a $745 million verdict against Chevron and two other companies.
But the companies challenged the verdict, saying the lawsuit should have been heard in federal court, not state court.
Thanks to the Supreme Court, the Plaquemines Parish case may now be retried in a US district court. Company spokesperson Bill Turenne said in a statement that “Chevron looks forward to litigating these cases in federal court, where they belong.”
There are also potential implications for other legal battles involving the industry that is fueling the global climate emergency—as American Energy Institute CEO Jason Isaac, a former Republican state representative in Texas, celebrated in a Friday statement. He described the decision as “a critical step toward restoring sanity to our legal system and stopping the endless wave of politically motivated lawsuits designed to punish the very industry that powers our economy and national security.”
The Supreme Court’s decision notably came as the justices prepare to hear ExxonMobil and Suncor’s request to move a 2018 lawsuit filed by the city of Boulder, Colorado—seeking financial damages for the companies’ role in creating the climate crisis—from state to federal court. Alito has not yet recused himself from that case.
Fossil fuel companies largely have support from the Republican Party, which controls the White House and both chambers of Congress. President Donald Trump returned to power last year with help from the industry’s campaign cash, and his administration has supported the companies being challenged in Louisiana.
As The New York Times noted Friday, the local communities’ lawsuits “have gained support from Louisiana Republican leaders, including those who have otherwise endorsed President Trump’s ‘energy dominance’ agenda. Gov. Jeff Landry and Attorney General Liz Murrill, both Republicans, have supported the legal challenges.”
However, ahead of the November midterm elections, Republicans in Congress are working on shielding oil and gas companies from what they call “abusive state climate lawsuits.” As Common Dreams reported Friday, US Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Congresswoman Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) introduced the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act this week.
“Big Oil companies have raked in massive profits at the pump while lying to the American people about the catastrophic harm of their products, and now they want to deny Americans their rightful day in court and stick taxpayers with the bill for the mess they made,” said Center for Climate Integrity president Richard Wiles. “If fossil fuel companies have done nothing wrong, why do they need immunity?”
There are related legislative efforts at the state level. As the Times detailed earlier this month, Utah recently “became the first state to enact a law that shields companies from climate-related claims.” Tennessee swiftly followed suit, and Republican lawmakers in states including Iowa, Louisiana, and Oklahoma are working on similar legislation.
Cassidy DiPaola, communications director for the Make Polluters Pay campaign, warned earlier this year that “a federal liability shield for fossil fuel companies would not lower energy prices or ease the cost of living. It would simply shift more of the financial burden onto working families and local governments while insulating one of the most profitable industries in history from accountability.”
“Congress should not close the courthouse doors to communities seeking redress,” said DiPaola. “Big Oil is not entitled to special immunity from the consequences of its conduct.”
This article has been updated to include updates on state legislation and Common Dreams’ reporting on a bill that would shield the fossil fuel industry from liability.
US Supreme Court sides with Chevron in environmental case
By AFP
April 17, 2026
The US Supreme Court sided with Chevron in an environmental damage case - Copyright GETTY IMAGES/AFP Anna Moneymaker
The US Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of oil giant Chevron on Friday in a case that could impact environmental damage lawsuits.
The court, in an 8-0 ruling, said a lawsuit against Chevron over damage done to coastal wetlands in Louisiana through crude oil production during World War II can be moved from state court to federal court.
A state jury in Louisiana ordered Chevron last year to pay $745 million to help restore the wetlands.
Chevron appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the company was acting as a federal contractor to the US military at the time and the case should be heard in federal court and not state court.
The Supreme Court agreed.
“Congress has long authorized federal officers and their agents to remove suits brought against them in state court to federal court,” Justice Clarence Thomas said. “This suit implicates acts by Chevron that are closely connected to the performance of its federal duties.”
Federal courts have traditionally been less accommodating than state courts to lawsuits seeking to hold fossil fuel producers liable for environmental damage, including that caused by climate change.
In February, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case brought by oil and gas companies seeking to block climate change lawsuits.
Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy (USA) are appealing a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that a climate change lawsuit filed by the city and county of Boulder, Colorado should be allowed to proceed in state court.
The energy giants argue that such claims should be heard in federal — not state — court and that federal environmental laws should apply.
Many of the climate change lawsuits filed against oil and gas giants by state and local authorities are modeled on successful legal actions taken against the tobacco industry in the 1990s.
None have yet gone to trial.
By AFP
April 17, 2026
The US Supreme Court sided with Chevron in an environmental damage case - Copyright GETTY IMAGES/AFP Anna Moneymaker
The US Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of oil giant Chevron on Friday in a case that could impact environmental damage lawsuits.
The court, in an 8-0 ruling, said a lawsuit against Chevron over damage done to coastal wetlands in Louisiana through crude oil production during World War II can be moved from state court to federal court.
A state jury in Louisiana ordered Chevron last year to pay $745 million to help restore the wetlands.
Chevron appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the company was acting as a federal contractor to the US military at the time and the case should be heard in federal court and not state court.
The Supreme Court agreed.
“Congress has long authorized federal officers and their agents to remove suits brought against them in state court to federal court,” Justice Clarence Thomas said. “This suit implicates acts by Chevron that are closely connected to the performance of its federal duties.”
Federal courts have traditionally been less accommodating than state courts to lawsuits seeking to hold fossil fuel producers liable for environmental damage, including that caused by climate change.
In February, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case brought by oil and gas companies seeking to block climate change lawsuits.
Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy (USA) are appealing a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that a climate change lawsuit filed by the city and county of Boulder, Colorado should be allowed to proceed in state court.
The energy giants argue that such claims should be heard in federal — not state — court and that federal environmental laws should apply.
Many of the climate change lawsuits filed against oil and gas giants by state and local authorities are modeled on successful legal actions taken against the tobacco industry in the 1990s.
None have yet gone to trial.
No comments:
Post a Comment