Supreme Court sides with Chevron in environmental case

WASHINGTON (Gray DC) - The Supreme Court justices’ unanimously ruled in favor of the oil and gas companies Friday, finding that an environmental lawsuit against it should be fought in federal court.

The case came to the justices after a Louisiana state court jury handed down a $745 million verdict in favor of coastal communities, who alleged that oil and gas operations damaged their wetlands.

Chevron and other companies argued that the case belongs in federal court because their oil and gas operations began under World War II federal contracts.

“It dates back to the 1940s, when the U.S. was desperately trying to expand the supply of aviation fuel for the war effort,” said Robert Percival, director of the environmental law program at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. “And, the court said that in that context, the federal government had required the oil companies to greatly expand production, and therefore, they had a right to have the case heard in federal court.”

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion that “Congress has long authorized federal officers and their agents to remove suits brought against them in state court to federal court.”

Justice Samuel Alito rescued himself from the case, citing financial interest in ConocoPhillips, a company that has been involved in some legal proceedings of the case.

Some legal experts said the decision could make the outcome of similar cases more favorable for oil and gas companies.

“For these particular suits and any where the defendant was working under the direction of the federal government, this will make it easier to get those claims in the federal court, where the judges may be a little more strict with plaintiffs about whether their claim really fits what the law says,” said Keith Hall, a law professor at Louisiana State University.

But Percival said that state court tendencies have changed in recent years.

“Some state courts have had a reputation of being very pro plaintiff and that, some defendants wouldn’t get a fair shake in state courts. But I think that’s less so the case today,” he said. “We’ve seen both federal and state courts operate quite well in the state of Louisiana. The fact they were able to handle the Deepwater Horizon massive litigation showed that.”

Hall said that the ruling forces the case to restart in federal court, where judges may not be as accepting of the Louisiana’s communities’ argument, alleging that Chevron violated the Louisiana State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act, passed in 1978.

“This could not only require that this particular case basically start over in federal court, the one in which Plaquemines Parish got a $745 million judgment, but it may mean that a bunch of the other suits, as well as this one, are going to be in front of a judge who might not be as accepting of the argument that this 1978 statute can apply retroactively,” Hall said.

In a statement, Chevron spokesperson Bill Turenne said the company applauded the high court’s decision.

“As the Court recognized, the plaintiffs’ claims are related to activities that Chevron and other energy companies performed under federal supervision during World War II,” he said. “Those claims are flawed as a matter of both state law and federal law, and Chevron looks forward to litigating these cases in federal court, where they belong.”

Tommy Faucheux, president of the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association, said the Supreme Court made official what the industry has long been pushing for.

“These misguided lawsuits never belonged in state court,” said Faucheux. “Hopefully, the state will take this opportunity to bring these suits to an end so we can collectively focus on the energy opportunities that lie ahead for Louisiana.”

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, who has been arguing on behalf of the coastal communities, said in a statement that the court change will not affect the case’s outcome.

“A jury in one of the most conservative, pro–oil and gas communities in the country found that Chevron was liable for billions of gallons of toxic waste dumped into the Louisiana marsh,” she said. “It doesn’t matter whether this case is in state court or federal court—I am confident the outcome will be the same.”

The environmental advocacy group, Environmental Defense Fund, said in statement that despite the ruling, they believe energy companies still have a responsibility.

“We cannot lose sight of the impacts on people’s lives,” said Liz Russell, the Louisiana state director for the group. “The Supreme Court’s decision does not change the reality that companies and policymakers alike have a responsibility to do their part in addressing the toxic discharges, the damaged land, and the equipment left behind that is a legacy of pollution impacting the people of Plaquemines Parish and people in communities across Louisiana.”