The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing a jurisdictional dispute that could determine whether long-running lawsuits brought by Louisiana coastal communities against major oil and gas companies will proceed in state or federal court. The cases, which have been pending for more than a decade, seek billions of dollars in damages to address environmental harm allegedly caused by decades of oil and gas activity along Louisiana’s fragile coastline.
At the center of the dispute are more than 40 lawsuits filed by Louisiana parishes and later supported by the state’s attorney general. The suits allege that energy
companies violated state coastal permitting laws, contributing to severe land loss, erosion, and environmental degradation in coastal wetlands. Defendants include some of the largest oil producers in the country, such as Chevron and Exxon Mobil.
Jurisdiction, Not Liability, at Issue
Importantly, the Supreme Court is not being asked to decide whether oil companies are liable for coastal damage. Instead, the justices are focused on where the litigation should be heard. Oil companies argue the cases belong in federal court, while Louisiana officials insist they should remain in state court.
The companies rely on a federal law that allows defendants to move
lawsuits from state court to federal court if the claims relate to actions taken under the direction of a federal officer. According to the oil companies, some of the drilling and production activities referenced in the lawsuits were connected to federal wartime energy programs during the mid-20th century, particularly during World War II.
Lower federal courts have rejected that argument, finding that routine oil and gas operations were too far removed from federal oversight to justify federal jurisdiction. Those rulings sent the cases back to Louisiana state courts, prompting the oil companies to seek Supreme Court review.
Louisiana’s Coastal Claims
Louisiana argues that the lawsuits are grounded entirely in state law, specifically the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act. The law requires companies operating in coastal zones to obtain permits and restore affected land after completing operations. State and local officials allege that oil companies failed to meet those obligations, leaving behind abandoned canals and infrastructure that accelerated erosion and land loss.
According to Louisiana, billions of gallons of “produced water,” a byproduct of oil and gas extraction containing contaminants, were discharged into marshlands over decades. Officials say the environmental damage has contributed to flooding risks, loss of wildlife habitats, and increased vulnerability to hurricanes.
Supreme Court Questions Scope of Federal Law
During oral arguments, several justices expressed concern about how broadly the federal removal statute should be interpreted. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether allowing removal based on indirect or historical connections to federal contracts could dramatically expand federal jurisdiction over state law disputes.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also noted that when Congress amended the statute in 2011, it described the change as technical rather than a major expansion of defendants’ rights. That context, she suggested, may weigh against reading the law too broadly.
Other justices explored whether accepting the oil companies’ argument could open the door for many private contractors to shift state law cases into federal courts simply by pointing to some historical relationship with the federal government.
Political and Legal Stakes
The case has drawn attention beyond Louisiana. The Biden administration filed a brief supporting the state’s position, arguing that the lawsuits are traditional state law enforcement actions that belong in state courts. By contrast, the Trump administration previously backed the oil companies’ efforts to move the cases into federal court.
The outcome could have significant implications for environmental litigation nationwide. A ruling favoring the oil companies could make it easier for corporate defendants to
transfer state law environmental and infrastructure cases into federal courts, potentially slowing or
limiting local enforcement efforts.
Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the case due to a recusal tied to
financial interests connected to one of the parties.
What Comes Next
The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision by June. If the justices side with Louisiana, the long-delayed lawsuits could finally move toward trial in state courts. If the oil companies prevail, the litigation could restart in federal court, further delaying any resolution.
For Louisiana’s coastal communities, the ruling may determine whether they can pursue large-scale funding to restore disappearing wetlands or face additional legal hurdles in their fight against environmental damage linked to decades of energy development.
Explore thousands of updated legal job opportunities and career resources at
LawCrossing. Stay ahead in your legal career by accessing exclusive law firm openings, in-house positions, and expert career insights—
visit LawCrossing today and find your next legal opportunity.
