Supreme Court to hear appeal from Chevron in landmark Louisiana coastal damage lawsuits
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear an appeal from Chevron, Exxon and other oil and gas companies that lawsuits seeking compensation for coastal land loss and environmental degradation in Louisiana should be heard in federal court.
The companies are appealing a 2024 decision by a federal appeals court that kept the lawsuits in state courts, allowing them to move to trial after more than a decade in limbo.
A southeast Louisiana jury then ordered Chevron to pay upwards of $740 million to clean up damage to the state's coastline. The verdict reached in April was the first of dozens of lawsuits filed in 2013 against leading oil and gas companies in Louisiana alleging they violated state environmental laws for decades.
While plaintiffs' attorneys say the appeal encompasses at least 10 cases, Chevron disagrees and says the court's ruling could have broader implications for additional lawsuits.
Chevron argues that because it and other companies began oil production and refining during World War II as a federal contractor, these cases should be heard in federal court, perceived to be friendlier to businesses.
But the plaintiffs' attorneys — representing the Plaquemines and Jefferson Parish governments — say the appeal is the companies' latest stall tactic to avoid accountability. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit already rejected similar arguments from Chevron.
'It's more delay, they're going to fight till the end and we're going to continue to fight as well,' said John Carmouche, a trial attorney in the Chevron case who is behind the other lawsuits. He noted that the companies' appeal 'doesn't address the merits of the case.'
The court's decision to hear the appeal offers the chance for 'fair and consistent application of the law' and will 'help preserve legal stability for the industry that fuels America's economy,' said Tommy Faucheux, president of the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association, in an emailed statement.
In April, jurors in Plaquemines Parish — a sliver of land straddling the Mississippi River into the Gulf — found that energy giant Texaco, acquired by Chevron in 2001, had for decades violated Louisiana regulations governing coastal resources by failing to restore wetlands impacted by dredging canals, drilling wells and billions of gallons of wastewater dumped into the marsh.
'No company is big enough to ignore the law, no company is big enough to walk away scot-free,' Carmouche told jurors during closing arguments.
Louisiana's coastal parishes have lost more than 2,000 square miles (5,180 square kilometers) of land over the past century, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, which has also identified oil and gas infrastructure as a significant cause. The state could lose another 3,000 square miles (7,770 square kilometers) in the coming decades, its coastal protection agency has warned.
Chevron's attorneys had argued that land loss in Louisiana was caused by other factors and that the company should not be held liable for its actions prior to the enactment of a 1980 environmental law requiring companies to obtain permits and restore land they had used.
The fact that the lawsuits had been delayed for so long due to questions of jurisdiction was 'bordering on absurd,' the late-federal judge Martin Leach-Cross Feldman remarked in 2022 during oral arguments in one of the lawsuits, according to court filings. He added: 'Frankly, I think it's kind of shameful.'
Louisiana's Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, a longtime oil and gas industry supporter, nevertheless made the state a party to the lawsuits during his tenure as attorney general.
'Virtually every federal court has rejected Chevron's attempt to avoid liability for knowingly and intentionally violating state law,' Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement. 'I'll fight Chevron in state or federal court—either way, they will not win.'
___
___
This story has been corrected to show that Chevron's counsel was 'pleased' with the decision by the Supreme Court, not the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Europe frets about US retreating from region ahead of NATO
With some 80,000 US troops in Europe, governments in the region have factored in at least a reversal of the military surge under former president Joe Biden of about 20,000 troops. The stakes got significantly higher overnight after the U.S. struck nuclear sites in Iran with the risk that Trump will get sucked into a spiraling conflict in the Middle East after being a vocal critic of US military involvement overseas. His foreign policy U-turn will be a topic that will be hard to avoid at the gathering, especially with NATO ally Turkey present and a key stakeholder in the region. Europeans have been kept in the dark about the Trump administration's plans. But officials in the region are bracing potentially for a far bigger withdrawal that could present a dangerous security risk, according to officials familiar with the discussions who declined to be identified as closed-door talks take place before the review. Advertisement Up until early June, no official from the United States had come to NATO to talk about the US force posture review, spurring concern among allies that this could be done at very short notice, according to a person familiar with the matter. Advertisement It's unclear whether European nations have started planning to fill any potential gaps left by US forces. Withdrawing the aforementioned 20,000 troops could also have an even greater impact if other NATO allies follow the US lead and remove their troops from the east. The worry with even deeper cuts impacting US bases in Germany and Italy is they could encourage Russia to test NATO's Article 5 of collective defense with hybrid attacks across the alliance, the person familiar also said. Since returning to the White House, Trump and his allies have warned European capitals that – despite the mounting threat from Russia – they need to take charge of their security as the United States turns its military and diplomatic focus to the Indo-Pacific region. Contacted by Bloomberg, NATO declined to respond to questions but referred to a statement by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in early June. When asked about a US drawdown from Europe, he said it was normal they would pivot to Asia. 'I'm not worried about that, but I'm absolutely convinced we will do that in a step-by-step approach,' Rutte said then. 'There will be no capability gaps in Europe because of this.' The White House referred questions to the Pentagon. 'The U.S. constantly evaluates force posture to ensure it aligns with America's strategic interests,' a defense official responded. The geopolitical shift is likely to have enormous consequences for the 32-member alliance, which is weathering its greatest challenge since it became the bulwark against Soviet power in the decades after World War II. European militaries, long reliant on American hard power, will have to fill the gap as Washington scales back. Advertisement If a troop reduction focuses on efficiency, it would be far less problematic for Europeans than one that hits critical assets and personnel that Europe couldn't replace immediately, according to one European diplomat. The nature of a withdrawal would be more important than the troop numbers, the person said. A dramatic pullout announcement is likely to trigger an instant reaction from eastern member states, with those closer to Russia immediately requesting deployments from Western European allies. The holistic review of the US military, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says should focus on threats facing the U.S., is meant to reflect the tilt in the global power dynamic, bringing potentially large-scale redeployment of weapons and troops. But European diplomats have bristled at the timing of the review, taking place only after NATO signs off on its most ambitious new weapons targets since the Cold War — with member states agreeing to foot the bill. A withdrawal that is more dramatic than anticipated will mean that, after acceding to Trump's ramp-up in defense spending, they still may be left with a heavy burden to respond to a rapidly growing Russian military. 'We would be remiss in not reviewing force posture everywhere, but it would be the wrong planning assumption to say, 'America is abandoning'' or leaving Europe, Hegseth said in Stuttgart in February. 'No, America is smart to observe, plan, prioritize and project power to deter conflict.' After the Trump administration balked at providing a backstop to European security guarantees to Ukraine, a pullout of more US troops could embolden Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. Advertisement 'The question is when pressure is on for a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, what capabilities do they need to think about moving,' said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, a defense think tank. 'I don't get an impression that they have yet decided what that means for force levels in specific terms.' Germany, Europe's richest and most populous nation, is positioning itself to take on the largest share of the redistribution. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is taking the lead in building out the military after the country scrapped constitutional debt restrictions when it comes to security. Berlin will do the 'heavy lifting,' he's said. Pistorius recently unveiled a new battle tank brigade in Lithuania and has said the country is committed to boosting its armed forces by as many as 60,000 soldiers. The military currently has about 182,000 active-duty troops. European governments are pushing Washington to communicate its plans clearly and space out any troop draw-downs to give them time to step up with their own forces. 'There are some capabilities, like deep precision strikes, where we Europeans need some time to catch up,' said Stefan Schulz, a senior official in the German Defense Ministry. He called for any US reduction to be done in an orderly fashion, 'so that this process of US reduction is matched with the uplift of European capabilities.' The ideal scenario would be an orderly shift within NATO toward a stronger Europe that would take about a decade, said Camille Grand, distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former NATO assistant secretary general. A more dire scenario would involve a US administration acting out of frustration with European progress and drastically reducing troop presence. Grand said a 'plausible' scenario would be a cut to about 65,000 US troops, matching a low-point figure before Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 — a level that NATO could manage. Advertisement 'But if we go below that, we are entering uncharted waters, a different world,' Grand said.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
How the US bombarded Iranian nuclear sites without detection
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — It was an unprecedented attack years in the making, with some last-minute misdirection meant to give the operation a powerful element of surprise. U.S. pilots dropped 30,000-pound bombs early Sunday on two key underground uranium enrichment plants in Iran, delivering what American military leaders believe is a knockout blow to a nuclear program that Israel views as an existential threat and has been pummeling for more than a week. American sailors bolstered the surprise mission by firing dozens of cruise missiles from a submarine toward at least one other site. Dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer, U.S. officials say the plan was characterized by a 'precision strike' that 'devastated the Iranian nuclear program,' even as they acknowledged an assessment was ongoing. For its part, Iran denied that any significant damage had been done, and the Islamic Republic pledged to retaliate. Taking off from the U.S. heartland, B-2 stealth bombers delivered a total of 420,000 pounds of explosives, aided by an armada of refueling tankers and fighter jets — some of which launched their own weapons. U.S. officials said Iran neither detected the inbound fusillade, nor mustered a shot at the stealthy American jets. The operation relied on a series of deceptive tactics and decoys to maintain the secrecy, U.S. officials said hours after the attack, which was preceded by nine days of Israeli attacks that debilitated Iran's military leadership and air defenses. A decoy plan Even before the planes took off, elements of misdirection were already in play. After setting parts of the plan in motion, Trump publicly announced Thursday that he'd make a decision within two weeks on whether to strike Iran — ostensibly to allow additional time for negotiations, but in actuality masking the impending attack. One group of B-2 stealth bombers traveled west from Missouri on Saturday as decoys, drawing the attention of amateur plane spotters, government officials and some media as they headed toward a U.S. air base in the Pacific. At the same time, seven other B-2s carrying two 'bunker buster' bombs apiece flew eastward, keeping communications to a minimum so as not to draw any attention. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at Sunday's briefing that it was all "part of a plan to maintain tactical surprise' and that only 'an extremely small number of planners and key leaders' knew about it in Washington and Florida, where U.S. Central Command is based. After 18 hours of furtive flying that required aerial refueling, the armed B-2 Spirit bombers, each with two crew members, arrived on time and without detection in the Eastern Mediterranean, from where they launched their attack runs. Before crossing into Iran, the B-2s were escorted by stealthy U.S. fighter jets and reconnaissance aircraft. A graphic released by the Pentagon showed the flight route as passing over Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. It was unclear whether those countries were notified of the U.S. overflight in advance. Most U.S. lawmakers were also kept in the dark, with some Republicans saying they were provided a brief heads-up by the White House before the strike. 'Our B-2s went in and out and back without the world knowing at all,' Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told reporters Sunday. A multifaceted attack About an hour before the B-2s entered Iran, Caine said that a U.S. submarine in the region launched more than two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles against key targets, including a site in Isfahan where uranium is prepared for enrichment. As the U.S. bombers approached their targets, they watched out for Iranian fighter jets and surface-to-air missiles, but encountered none. At 6:40 p.m. in Washington and 2:10 a.m. in Tehran, the first B-2 bomber dropped its pair of GBU-57 massive ordnance penetrators on the deeply buried Fordo uranium enrichment plant. It was the first time these so-called 'bunker busters' had ever been used in combat. Each 30,000-pound bomb is designed to burrow into the ground before detonating a massive warhead. The Fordo site received the bulk of the bombardment, though a couple of the enormous bombs were also dropped on a uranium enrichment site at Natanz. The U.S. bombs fell for about half an hour, with cruise missiles fired from submarines being the last American weapons to hit their targets, which included a third nuclear site at Isfahan, Caine said. Both Iran and the U.N. nuclear watchdog said there were no immediate signs of radioactive contamination around the sites. A look at the numbers The mission included: — 75 precision-guided weapons: these included 14 GBU-57 'bunker buster' bombs deployed by the seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, and more than two-dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from a U.S. submarine. — 125 aircraft, including the B-2 bombers, fighter jets and refueling planes. A female pilot Hegseth said Sunday that 'our boys in those bombers are on their way home right now.' But a U.S. official said one woman was among those piloting the B-2 bombers. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the mission publicly. A bit of history Caine said the use of the bunker-buster bombs made the mission historic, as did other elements. 'This was the largest B-2 operational strike in U.S. history, and the second longest B-2 mission ever flown, exceeded only by those in the days following 9/11," he told reporters Sunday. ___ Lolita C. Baldor in Narragansett, Rhode Island and Nicholas Ingram in Knob Noster, Missouri, contributed reporting. Kinnard reported from Chapin, South Carolina.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Sierra Leone's President Bio to be the next ECOWAS chairman with region in turmoil
ABUJA, Nigeria (AP) — Sierra Leone's President Julius Maada Bio was chosen on Sunday to be the next chairman of the West African economic bloc, ECOWAS. The Economic Community of West African States, known as ECOWAS, was founded in 1975, and is facing challenges due to rising violence, member departures and economic disturbances. In a statement following Sunday's announcement, Bio promised to prioritize democracy, security cooperation, economic integration and institutional credibility. 'We are still confronting insecurity in the Sahel and coastal states, terrorism, political instability, illicit arms flow and transnational organized crimes continue to test the resilience of our nations and the effectiveness of our institutions,' he said. Bio is currently serving his second term as president after a contested election two years ago in the coastal West African country. He was president when ECOWAS imposed severe sanctions on Niger following a coup two years ago. Niger cited the sanctions as one of the reasons for leaving the bloc. Sierra Leone was one of the countries that supported a military intervention in the country in 2023. At home, Bio is facing an ongoing synthetic drug crisis and a stagnating economy. Bio's new position comes as the region faces its most severe crisis in decades with jihadist forces controlling vast swaths of the Sahel, a semi-arid region south of the Sahara. In the past few years, ECOWAS has struggled with the departure of Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger which have all faced military coups. All three juntas left the bloc, and created their own security partnership, the Alliance of Sahel States. They have cut ties with the traditional Western allies, ousting French and American military forces, and instead sought new security ties with Russia. The three countries have been the hardest hit by jihadist violence in recent years.
