Supreme Court sides unanimously with Big Oil in environmental lawsuit from Louisiana parishes

A series of lawsuits seeking potentially billions of dollars from oil companies for environmental damage to Louisiana's coastal areas got a substantial setback from the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court said 8-0 that one lawsuit would be moved out of the state's courthouses and instead considered in federal court, considered a more favorable judicial venue for the oil companies.

'A jury in one of the most conservative, pro-oil and gas communities in the country found that Chevron was liable for billions of gallons of toxic waste dumped into the Louisiana marsh.'

The ruling included only eight of the nine justices because Justice Samuel Alito recused himself over his stock holdings in ConocoPhillips.

The companies argued that the case belongs in federal court based on their predecessors' production of aviation fuel supply at the behest of the federal government during World War II. All of the justices agreed with that argument.

"Chevron's case fits comfortably within the ordinary meaning of a suit 'relating to' the performance of federal duties," Clarence Thomas wrote in the court opinion.

The ruling overturned a 2024 decision from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana.

The ruling will likely be consequential for other cases of parishes suing oil companies for environmental damages.

Republican Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, a plaintiff in the case, ⁠said she was confident they would win against the oil companies, despite the setback.

"A jury in one of the most conservative, pro-oil and gas communities in the country found that Chevron was liable for billions of gallons of toxic waste dumped into the Louisiana marsh," Murrill said in a statement. "It doesn't matter whether this case is in state court or federal court — I am confident the outcome will be the same."

Murrill referred to a jury ruling ordering Chevron USA Inc. to pay $740 million to the Plaquemines Parish.

Republican Gov. Jeff Landry has backed the lawsuits despite being a supporter of the oil industry in general.

"Simply changing where the case will be heard, as has happened, will not deter our efforts to have Big Oil held accountable for the damages they caused and the enormous restoration they owe the people of Louisiana," said John Carmouche, an attorney representing local state leaders.

RELATED: A red-state lawfare shakedown heads to the Supreme Court

In January, Oversight Project president and Blaze Media contributor Mike Howell argued that the Louisiana lawsuits were contrary to President Donald Trump's energy independence policies.

"President Trump's agenda prioritizes American energy dominance. His actions abroad reinforce that priority. Yet Republicans in Louisiana are not merely opposing that objective — they are using the very lawfare tactics they claim to despise to undermine it," Howell wrote.

"Lawfare does not become acceptable because Republicans use it," he concluded. "And environmental shakedowns do not become conservative simply because they originate in a red state. If the right intends to oppose lawfare, it needs to oppose it everywhere — especially when its own allies are the ones doing the shaking down."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!