Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 16 Jun 2025

1. This petition arises from Louisiana parishes' efforts to hold petitioners liable in state court for, inter alia, production of crude oil in the Louisiana coastal zone during World War II. Petitioners removed these cases from state court under 28 U.S.C. §1442 (a)(1), which as amended in 2011 provides federal jurisdiction over civil actions against "any person acting under [an] officer" of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office." The Fifth Circuit unanimously held that petitioners satisfy the statute's "acting under" requirement by virtue of their WWII-era contracts to supply the federal government with high-octane aviation gasoline ("avgas"). But the panel divided on the "relating to" requirement, with the two-judge majority holding that petitioners' wartime production of crude oil was "unrelated" to their contractually required refinement of that same crude into avgas because the contracts did not contain any explicit "directive pertaining to [petitioners'] oil production activities." App.38. Judge Oldham dissented, explaining that the majority's approach reinstates a variant of the "causal nexus" requirement that multiple circuits (and the U.S. Congress) have expressly rejected. The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by a vote of 7 to 6. The questions presented are:
2. Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute.
3. Whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case asked whether Louisiana environmental suits against Chevron were removable to federal court under the federal officer removal statute because they were “for or relating to” Chevron’s wartime refning of crude oil into aviation gasoline for the U.S. military. Writing for the Court, Justice Thomas held that Chevron plausibly alleged a close enough connection. The Court said the phrase “relating to” is broad, but not limitless, and covers suits with a non tenuous connection to federal duties. Here, the challenged crude-oil production was closely tied to Chevron’s wartime avgas refning because the production supplied the feedstock for that work and was part of an all-hands-on-deck wartime effort. The Court rejected the Fifth Circuit’s view that Chevron’s refning contract had to specify how to obtain crude oil, and also rejected Louisiana’s argument that the challenged conduct itself had to be taken under color of federal office. The judgment was vacated and remanded.