Supreme Court hands win to Chevron, Big Oil in environmental damage case
The decision puts into question a $745 million judgment against Chevron to help restore coastal wetlands in Louisiana that were damaged as long ago as World War II.
The Supreme Court on Friday sided with oil giant Chevron, ruling that it can fight an environmental damage lawsuit in federal court — a decision that could affect the outcomes of nearly a dozen other lawsuits that make similar allegations about the oil and gas industry.
The unanimous decision puts into question a $745 million state court judgment against Chevron to help restore coastal wetlands in Louisiana that were damaged as long ago as World War II. Chevron had asked the Supreme Court to order the case moved to federal court, where legal experts say judges and juries are less likely to have a bias toward local interests. A move to federal court also means the massive judgment could be vacated.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. did not participate in the case. Shortly before arguments in January, he recused himself, citing financial interests in ConocoPhillips, the parent of Burlington Resources Oil & Gas, a party in a related case.
The heart of Chevron’s case dated to World War II, when the firm’s predecessors played a key role in the refinement of aviation gas, or avgas, to meet the demands of the war. Because the work was on behalf of U.S. government interests, the company and its backers have argued, claims regarding the actions at the time should be heard in a federal court rather than at the state level. The high court agreed.
“In this all-hands-on-deck, wartime context, Chevron needed to produce more crude oil as quickly as possible to facilitate more avgas refining, including its own,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority.
The decision is a blow to Plaquemines Parish in Louisiana as it seeks to rectify significant coastal damage. It could also hamper separate efforts to hold oil companies accountable for environmental damage they allegedly contribute to, experts say.
John Carmouche, an attorney representing Plaquemines Parish, said a jury of residents decided the case “after hearing the overwhelming evidence of the failure by these companies to repair what they destroyed. The Supreme Court has decided the people of Plaquemines did not have the right to make this decision. So, while we strongly disagree, we accept what the court has said.” He added, “No doubt, there will be an effort by Big Oil to deny the people of the impacted parishes their right to make these decisions in their courts.”
Plaquemines Parish filed its lawsuit in 2013 alongside five other coastal parishes. It alleged that oil companies had caused environmental damage in violation of a 1978 state law aimed at conserving the imperiled coastline.
The litigation holds particular relevance in Louisiana, where the oil and gas industry remains a major employer and the coastal region has steadily vanished in recent decades.
A 2017 analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey found that the state had lost about 2,000 square miles of land along its coast from 1932 to 2016. That equates to losing about a football field’s worth of coastal wetlands every 34 minutes during periods of most rapid loss.
Scientists have documented how oil and gas extraction has played a significant role in the degradation of such landscapes over time. Oil spills have stressed vegetation and wildlife. The dredging of canals and construction of pipelines have altered natural hydrology, increased saltwater intrusion and undermined wetlands.
In April 2025, a Louisiana state court jury ruled that Chevron must pay almost $745 million to help restore coastal wetlands in Plaquemines Parish for damage that may have started during the World War II-era rush for fuel.
Carmouche said he and his team will “aggressively defend the rights of Louisiana citizens and will continue in [the] fight to restore and rebuild what has been harmed or destroyed.”
The decision’s effects could reach far beyond the Louisiana case. Other companies that do business with the federal government are likely to pursue arguments similar to Chevron’s in the future, said Mark Davis, director of the Center for Environmental Law at Tulane University.
Chevron applauded the 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,” company spokesman Bill Turenne said in a statement. “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.”