Federal Officer Removal Statute Supreme Court Case (Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish)

Developing StoryLast updated MAR 4
SUMMARY

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on January 12, 2026, in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, concerning the federal officer removal statute and whether oil companies sued for ecological damage during World War II can move their cases to federal court. As of February 25, 2026, a decision is anticipated soon, which will significantly impact federal contractor litigation and potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself on January 26, 2026, due to a financial interest, leaving eight justices to decide the case. The case involves a $744.6 million verdict against oil and gas companies, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urging the Supreme Court to enforce the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute.

Timeline

Want updates on this thread?

Track this story

2026

10 updates

The Supreme Court's decision in Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish is expected to significantly impact federal contractor litigation by potentially broadening or restricting their ability to remove cases to federal court. The case, which stems from alleged ecological damage during World War II oil production, hinges on the interpretation of the federal-officer removal statute. A decision is anticipated soon, with implications for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

via Fluet Garcia Architects·The Washington Times·supremecourt.gov

Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana due to a financial interest in ConocoPhillips, a parent company of a party in the lower court case. His recusal means the case will be decided by the remaining eight justices.

via knewz.com

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a coalition amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to enforce the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute.

via uschamber.com

The Supreme Court is considering whether oil companies being sued in state court for oil production during World War II can move the case to federal court based on federal contracts for wartime fuel. The case addresses whether a causal-nexus or but-for causation standard applies under the Federal Officer Removal Statute.

via youtube.com·youtube.com·wwno.org·scotusblog.com·jdsupra.com

A webinar was held on January 21, 2026, to discuss the oral arguments in *Chevron USA, Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana*, highlighting the hundreds of millions of dollars in damages at stake.

via fedsoc.org

The Supreme Court heard arguments in Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish regarding the federal officer removal statute, specifically whether World War II-era federal contracts for aviation gas justify moving a coastal damage lawsuit to federal court. The Fifth Circuit previously rejected this argument, a decision the Washington Legal Foundation is urging the Supreme Court to overturn. The case involves a $744.6 million verdict against oil and gas companies.

via Medill on the Hill·SCOTUSblog·Washington Legal Foundation

During oral arguments, justices considered the industry's argument that cases should be heard in federal court because companies provided petroleum products for World War II federal contracts. A state court had previously ruled Chevron had to pay $745 million to a Louisiana parish.

via politico.com·medill.northwestern.edu

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on January 12, 2026, in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, a case examining the federal officer removal statute. The central question is whether historical crude oil production activities by companies with World War II-era contracts for refined aviation gasoline sufficiently relate to those contracts for removal purposes. The Fifth Circuit had previously ruled against removal.

via supremecourt.gov

During the oral arguments, Chevron's counsel, Paul Clement, asserted that the 2011 amendment to the Federal Officer Removal Act, which added the words 'related to,' was intended to have a broad meaning. He argued this interpretation applied to the refining of aviation fuel.

via supremecourt.gov

2025

6 updates

The Atlantic Legal Foundation and Washington Legal Foundation filed a joint amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to reverse the Fifth Circuit's narrow interpretation of the federal-officer removal statute.

via atlanticlegal.org

The Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 16, 2025, in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish to review the scope of the federal officer removal statute. The case will determine if a federal contractor can remove litigation to federal court for activities performed under a World War II-era federal oil-refinement contract, focusing on the interpretation of the "relating to" standard in the 2011 amendment.

via Ballotpedia·supremecourt.gov·Law360

2024

1 update

After multiple attempts by the oil companies to remove the cases to federal court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district courts' decisions to remand the cases back to state court. The Fifth Circuit found that while Chevron's production of aviation fuel under federal contracts during World War II constituted 'acting under' a federal officer, the crude oil production activities were not sufficiently 'connected or associated with' that refining, as required by Fifth Circuit caselaw.

via oyez.org·ballotpedia.org·fedsoc.org·law.cornell.edu·scotusblog.com

2013

1 update

Several Louisiana coastal parishes, including Plaquemines and Cameron, filed lawsuits in state court against a consortium of oil and gas companies, such as BP America Production Company, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., and Shell Oil Company. The parishes alleged violations of Louisiana's State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978 (SLCRMA) due to oil and gas exploration, production, and transportation without proper permits or in violation of permit conditions. The complaints also included pre-1980 activities, some dating back to World War II.

via oyez.org·ballotpedia.org·fedsoc.org·law.cornell.edu·scotusblog.com

Story began · 13 years, 4 mo ago