Supreme Court Decides Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana

On April 17, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, No. 24-813, holding that the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), authorizing removal of lawsuits filed in state court against federal officers or those "acting under" the officer "for or relating to any act under color of such office" broadly encompasses challenged conduct that plausibly bears a close relationship with the performance of federal duties. The statute does not require a showing that the federal duties specifically required or strictly caused the challenged conduct. 

Multiple Louisiana parishes commenced state-court suits against oil and gas companies alleging violations of the 1978 Louisiana State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act, which imposed permitting requirements and regulated certain practices for uses of Louisiana's coastal zones. Defendants sought to remove pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) on the basis that the challenged conduct, production of crude oil for aviation gasoline, related to contracts with the federal government during World War II under the direction of the Petroleum Administration for War.

The federal district court remanded back to state court. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the challenged conduct, the means of acquiring the crude oil, was not sufficiently related to defendants' contractual duties of refinement of the crude oil into avgas. 

The Supreme Court reversed, applying a broad definition to the term "relating to" and holding that the term encompassed indirect connections between the challenged conduct and the federal duties, and only must not be "tenuous, remote, or peripheral" to such duties. The oil companies' conduct was sufficiently tied to their duties under federal contracts to support federal officer removal. 

Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett. Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito took no part in the decision of the case.