The Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision on April 17 in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, No. 24-813, addressing the scope of the federal officer removal statute under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The Court held that this statute broadly covers conduct that has a close relationship with federal duties, even if those duties did not specifically require or directly cause the challenged actions.
This decision is significant for cases involving companies or individuals acting under federal officers who seek to move lawsuits from state to federal court. The ruling clarifies that it is enough for the challenged conduct to be plausibly connected to federal responsibilities; there does not need to be a direct requirement or strict causation by those duties.
The case began when several Louisiana parishes filed state-court lawsuits against oil and gas companies for alleged violations of the 1978 Louisiana State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act. The defendants attempted to remove these cases to federal court, arguing their production of crude oil for aviation gasoline during World War II was conducted under contracts with the federal government and direction from the Petroleum Administration for War.
A lower district court had sent the cases back to state court, and this decision was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit, which found that acquiring crude oil was not closely related enough to contractual obligations regarding its refinement into aviation gasoline (avgas). However, the Supreme Court reversed these decisions. The justices applied a broad interpretation of “relating to,” stating it includes indirect connections as long as they are not “tenuous, remote, or peripheral” in relation to federal duties.
Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote an opinion concurring in judgment. Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in deciding this case.
The ruling may affect future litigation involving entities acting under government direction who seek access to federal courts.
