Docket 24-813
Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish
DecidedApr 17, 2026
8-0unanimous decision
Source: CourtListener.
Court allows Chevron to move Louisiana coastal-damage lawsuit 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 parish's lawsuit "relates to" Chevron's federal duties under the removal statute. This means Chevron can move the case from Louisiana state court to federal court. The Court sends the case back to the lower court for further proceedings under this standard.
Who benefits
Companies and contractors who performed work under federal wartime or other government contracts and are now sued in state court over related activities, since they gain broader ability to move such suits into federal court.
Who is affected
Local governments and private plaintiffs, like Plaquemines Parish and other Louisiana parishes, who sued oil companies in state court under state environmental law, since their cases may now be shifted to federal court where federal defenses can be raised.
Practical impact
Companies with historical or current federal contracts facing state lawsuits over related but not explicitly contract-directed conduct will find it easier to remove those cases to federal court, where they can raise federal defenses. Plaintiffs, including local governments in Louisiana pursuing similar coastal-zone violation claims against dozens of oil and gas companies, may see more of their cases shifted from state to federal venues, potentially affecting the parishes' broader litigation strategy.
Majority reasoning
Justice Thomas explained that the phrase "relating to" in the removal statute is broad, requiring only that the connection between the challenged conduct and the federal duty not be "tenuous, remote, or peripheral," not a strict causal link. The Court found that Chevron's wartime crude-oil production was closely tied to its avgas refining contract because much of that oil went directly into its own refining for the military, and the government pushed for maximum crude-oil output to support the war effort. The Court rejected the Fifth Circuit's reasoning that the refining contract had to specifically direct how Chevron obtained crude oil, noting that a connection can exist even when federal duties don't specifically require the challenged conduct. It also rejected the idea that the government's role as an intermediary allocating crude oil to refineries severed the connection, comparing this to precedent where advertising rules "related to" airline rates even though the effect worked through consumer behavior as an intermediary. Finally, the Court rejected Louisiana's argument that removal requires the specific challenged act itself to have been done under federal authority, finding this would make the "relating to" language pointless.
Constitutional question
Does the federal officer removal statute allow a company to move a state lawsuit to federal court when the suit challenges wartime crude-oil production activities that were connected to, but not specifically directed by, the company's separate federal contract to refine that oil into aviation fuel for the military?