Numerous Republican attorney generals and senators are warning that multiple lawsuits in Louisiana against major oil and gas companies could undermine America’s energy dominance while President Donald Trump seeks to unleash domestic energy production.
Though there have been around 40 related cases over how much responsibility oil and gas companies should shoulder for coastal erosion in Louisiana’s wetlands since November 2013, the upcoming Supreme Court case, Chevron U.S.A. v. Plaquemines Parish, will determine whether the cases are fought in federal or state courts, a decision some energy experts warn could unleash costly litigation that threatens American energy dominance. Several parties filed amicus briefs Thursday — including the Department of Justice, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Republican Alaska Attorney General Stephen Cox — arguing that the cases belong in federal court since some of the alleged damages by Chevron and other oil and gas companies occurred during World War II under federal contracts.
“Alaska is proud to stand with the Justice Department, West Virginia, and several states in pushing back against climate lawfare. These lawsuits try to rewrite history by punishing companies for work that was lawful and federally encouraged decades ago,” Cox told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The real issue is America’s future — our ability to produce energy, create jobs, and remain secure. We will keep fighting to make sure courts are not weaponized to undermine the nation’s energy dominance.”
20250911145847599_24-813 -Chevron USA v. Plaquemines Parish Louisiana by audreystreb
Chevron and others argued that the Supreme Court should overturn a Fifth Circuit decision which states that the oil companies failed to prove that federal jurisdiction applied to these cases. Former Attorney Generals Bill Barr and Michael Mukasey, numerous state attorneys general and Chevron argue that these cases should be heard in federal courts and that parishes are trying to impose retroactive liability on energy companies for activities once federally authorized.
Barr argued in an April letter to Republican Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill following a verdict that Chevron had to pay over $740 million for coastal damages from wetland pollution and loss that if the “wave of 43 lawsuits” continue, they will “undermine President Trump’s efforts to re-establish American energy dominance.” Murrill has often sided with the parishes, arguing that holding energy companies accountable for alleged coastal damages is not incongruent with Trump’s energy agenda.
Barr, Mukasey and the seven sitting attorneys general argue that the parish lawsuits against Chevron and other companies could discourage oil and gas development in Louisiana.
Chevron is appealing the April ruling, and some of its defenders continue to argue that these lawsuits are an example of climate lawfare that seeks to undermine Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” agenda. Notably, Trump signed an April executive order aimed at preventing state overreach in the energy sector, and Republican West Virginia Attorney General John Mccuskey wrote in the Sept. 11 filing along with Cox and five other Republican attorneys general that “this case exemplifies a vast and troubling trend: state courts positioning themselves as forums to override national policy through nuclear verdicts, onerous injunctions, and more…”
Alliance For Consumers Executive Director O.H. Skinner told the DCNF that “woke Lawfare is one of the key fronts being pressed by left-wing activists, where they hope to obtain the policy victories in court that have been rejected at the ballot box and in the halls of Congress. … This Louisiana lawsuit is a chief example of the climate lawfare that is being pushed by these activists and trial lawyers. It would mark a major turning point for the Supreme Court to rule against the plaintiffs and provide its first decision disrupting that campaign.”
Several major climate lawsuits brought by Democratic-leaning cities and states against energy companies have recently been dismissed, but industry experts and oil and gas companies argue that if even one surviving case succeeds, it could set a precedent with sweeping consequences for the energy sector.
“Now play the tape through to the end: if energy companies don’t just give in to the shakedown, then they’re likely to find themselves sued in state courts. And without effective pathways for removal, the story playing out in Louisiana will repeat seriatim. The national energy industry will be crippled,” Mccuskey continued.
The Louisiana oil and gas industry is huge, generating over $54 billion for the state in 2021, according to an analysis from the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association (LMOGA) and American Petroleum Institute (API). The Gulf Coast accounts for 55% of American refining capacity, with Louisiana’s Gulf Coast alone representing a major share, according to data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA).
“This case most obviously implicates America’s national interest in energy production,” Mccuskey continued. “State courts have little business deciding critical energy-related issues entangled with national- security concerns… And let’s be clear: the problem extends beyond energy. If individual States can weaponize their own state-court systems to attack out-of-state actors for things that were nationally embraced as lawful and necessary at the time they were done, then there’s no obvious limiting principle to the power of States to regulate far beyond their own borders. Federal courts stand as a bulwark against that threat.”
The Chevron Oronite oil additives manufacturing facility is seen in Plaquemines Parish June 4, 2008 in Belle Chasse, Louisiana. (Photo by Mario Tama via Getty Images)
While the lawsuits against Chevron point to oil drilling as a major source of damage to the state’s coast, some environmentalist organizations, academic papers and Republican Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, the state’s former attorney general, have also referenced levying — frequently completed by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to limit hurricane damage — as harmful to the region, according to Barr’s letter. Murrill argues that even still, Chevron is responsible for a portion of coastal damage.
“The issue of hydrology changes caused by levees is addressed as a matter of contributory fault. The Plaquemines jury, for example, took that into account and found Chevron responsible for approximately 25% of the damage that was modeled. So it’s not legally an all or nothing proposition. The critics actually don’t want facts. They are content to hover above the facts and law, which is not a luxury I have,” Murrill told the DCNF. “Critics have me, the facts, and the law wrong. I have fought to defend the oil and gas industry when it wouldn’t fight for itself, which helped write MAGA’s energy agenda. Chevron discharged 4 billion gallons of toxic wastewater into our marsh, then lied about it. Facts matter.”
The attorneys general and some energy policy experts that spoke with the DCNF said that this case exemplifies how climate lawfare can hinder oil and gas development, while Murrill maintains that these cases are not akin to the climate nuisance lawsuits and that the rapidly eroding Louisiana coastline depends on a restorative effort not funded totally by the taxpayer.
“Leftwing activists are abusing the legal system to impose their anti-energy agenda and progressive lifestyle choices on working Americans who never voted for any of it. These climate lawsuits are not about justice or the environment,” CEO of the American Energy Institute Jason Isaac told the DCNF. “They are about control. I applaud these attorneys general for standing up to the climate lawfare cartel and defending the right of Americans to access affordable, reliable energy.”
The DOJ lawyers wrote in their Sept. 11 filing that “a federal forum is just that: a forum. If respondents’ claims have merit (a question on which the United States takes no position), they may proceed before impartial federal judges and juries in Louisiana, just upriver from the respondent parishes.”
Plaquemines Parish and Landry’s office did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
