Supreme Court moves Plaquemines Parish Chevron lawsuit to federal court

The US Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that a lawsuit by Plaquemines Parish against Chevron must be transferred from state to federal court, effectively voiding a $745 million judgment against the oil company. The decision stems from Chevron's activities during World War II as a military contractor off Louisiana's coast. Legal experts describe the move as frustrating but not a final win for the oil industry.

The Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that Plaquemines Parish's case accusing Chevron of damaging coastal wetlands through canal dredging and drilling should proceed in federal rather than state court. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the company's work as a military contractor during World War II warranted the shift. This unanimous decision cancels the prior $745 million award from a Louisiana state court jury after a decade-long fight, requiring the case to restart nearby in federal court. “Frankly, it’s a ridiculous situation,” said Patrick Parenteau, emeritus professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School. “All this time and effort has gone into litigating these issues before a jury in Louisiana. Now you have to do it all over again, but you’re doing it sort of up the street in the federal courthouse.” Edward P. Richards, a law professor at Louisiana State University, noted surprise that the case was not originally in federal court, citing federal aspects like dredging in navigable waterways. He suggested even liberal justices agreed due to these factors. Louisiana faces severe coastal land loss—over 2,000 square miles in the last century, with a football field vanishing every 100 minutes—and expects another 3,000 square miles gone by 2050 without action. The ruling drew applause from the Trump administration, seen as more industry-friendly, but experts say oil companies still face a Louisiana jury. Governor Jeff Landry, a Republican and oil supporter who has called climate change a hoax, backs these parish lawsuits. The decision is unlikely to affect broader climate lawsuits from states like Hawaii and Rhode Island, which target oil companies' past disinformation.

相关文章

U.S. Supreme Court building with ExxonMobil and Suncor lawyers entering amid Boulder climate activists protesting, illustrating the climate damages lawsuit appeal.
AI 生成的图像

Supreme Court to hear bid by ExxonMobil and Suncor to move Boulder climate-damages case out of state court

由 AI 报道 AI 生成的图像 事实核查

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that let Boulder and Boulder County pursue state-law tort claims against ExxonMobil and Suncor over alleged climate-change harms, a case with potential implications for similar lawsuits around the country.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an order on Monday allowing its April 29 decision in Louisiana v. Callais to take immediate effect, bypassing the usual 32-day waiting period. This enables Louisiana to cancel its congressional primaries and redraw maps before the 2026 midterms. The move sparked a sharp exchange between Justice Samuel Alito's concurrence and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent.

由 AI 报道

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's April 29 ruling in Callais v. Louisiana—which struck down a second majority-Black congressional district as racial gerrymandering—civil rights advocates in the Deep South have condemned the decision as a threat to Black representation. States including Alabama, Tennessee, and Louisiana are redrawing maps, prompting vows of lawsuits and midterm mobilization.

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R) postponed the state's U.S. House primaries until at least mid-July via emergency executive order following the Supreme Court's April 29, 2026, ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which struck down the congressional map as unconstitutional under the Voting Rights Act. The move, praised by President Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson but challenged by a lawsuit, has caused voter confusion amid ongoing early voting for other races, as Republicans eye redistricting gains.

由 AI 报道

In a follow-up to its April 29 ruling in Callais v. Louisiana, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsigned order on May 5 allowing the decision—striking down the state's congressional map as a racial gerrymander—to take effect immediately. Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurrence, sharply criticized Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's lone dissent as 'baseless' and 'insulting,' highlighting tensions amid 2026 election battles.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York overturned on Friday the first-instance ruling ordering Argentina to pay over $16 billion for the 2012 YPF expropriation. President Javier Milei hailed the decision as a historic victory and criticized former Kirchnerist officials. The ruling averts a massive payout, though Burford Capital said it will appeal.

由 AI 报道 事实核查

Legal fights over congressional maps are accelerating in multiple states as both parties maneuver for advantage before the November 2026 elections. A high-profile U.S. Supreme Court case involving Louisiana’s congressional map could have broader implications for how race is considered in redistricting under the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution.

 

 

 

此网站使用 cookie

我们使用 cookie 进行分析以改进我们的网站。阅读我们的 隐私政策 以获取更多信息。
拒绝