Docket 24-813
Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish
DecidedApr 17, 2026
7-0 (Alito recused)decision
Source: CourtListener.
Court lets Chevron move WWII-era oil pollution lawsuit from state to federal court
What it does
The Court holds that Chevron's crude-oil production during World War II is closely enough connected to its federal contract to refine that oil into aviation gasoline for the military that the lawsuit "relates to" Chevron's federal duties, satisfying the removal statute's requirement. It rejects the Fifth Circuit's stricter reading that would have required the refining contract to specifically direct how Chevron obtained crude oil, and sends the case back for further proceedings on removal.
Who benefits
Companies that performed government contract work (such as wartime military suppliers) who are later sued in state court over related business activities, since they gain an easier path to move such suits into federal court.
Who is affected
Louisiana parishes and other plaintiffs pursuing state-law environmental claims against oil companies for historic coastal damage, who may now find such suits redirected to federal court where federal defenses can be raised.
Practical impact
Companies with historic federal contracts facing state-law suits over related conduct will find it easier to remove those cases to federal court, where they can raise federal defenses such as government-contractor immunity. Louisiana's 42 pending coastal-zone lawsuits against oil and gas companies, several of which raised similar wartime-era claims, will likely see similar removal arguments succeed for defendants with comparable historic federal contracts, shifting these cases out of state court forums.
Majority reasoning
The majority, following dictionary definitions and precedent like Morales and Ingersoll-Rand, held that "relating to" is a broad phrase that does not require a strict causal or contractually specified link between the federal duty and the challenged conduct—an indirect connection suffices, so long as it is not tenuous, remote, or peripheral. Applying that standard, the Court found Chevron's crude-oil production was closely tied to its avgas refining because much of that oil supplied its own refinery, the government pushed refiners to maximize crude production through directives like vertical drilling and steel conservation, and the government treated the field as critical to the war effort. The Court rejected the Fifth Circuit's reasoning that the refining contract's silence on how to obtain crude oil, or the government's role as an intermediary allocating oil to refiners, severed the relationship. It also rejected Louisiana's alternative theory that removal requires the defendant to have been "acting under" a federal officer specifically for the challenged conduct, finding that reading would make the "relating to" language redundant.
Constitutional question
Under the federal officer removal statute, does a state-court environmental suit challenging Chevron's WWII crude-oil production count as "relating to" Chevron's separate wartime contract to refine that oil into aviation fuel for the military, allowing Chevron to move the case to federal court?