SCOTUS review could reshape where Gulf Coast erosion suits are heard

The Supreme Court will consider whether oil companies can move coastal erosion lawsuits from state courts to federal courts; the dispute follows a Louisiana jury's more-than-$740 million verdict against Chevron and could affect dozens of related claims.

The Supreme Court is weighing whether oil companies can transfer coastal erosion lawsuits from state and local courts into federal courts. The issue reached the high court after a Louisiana jury last year ordered Chevron to pay more than $740 million for wetlands damage tied to operations by its former subsidiary. Companies argue that some claims relate to wartime fuel production carried out under federal contract and raise concerns about local bias in some jurisdictions. State officials and plaintiffs say the harms cited are beyond federal control and that those cases belong in state courts. Key facts: - A jury in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, ordered Chevron to pay more than $740 million for alleged wetlands damage linked to mid-20th century operations. - Chevron and other petitioners argue some claims stem from wartime federal contracts and seek federal jurisdiction, citing concerns about local bias. - Attorneys say there are more than 40 similar cases filed, and experts say the Supreme Court’s decision could affect where those suits are heard and the scale of potential claims. Summary: A Supreme Court ruling could change the venue for dozens of Gulf Coast erosion cases and influence the scope of potential liability tied to those suits. The dispute centers on jurisdictional questions raised after the large Louisiana verdict and on legal arguments about federal contracts and local court bias. A decision by the high court is pending and the timing and outcome are undetermined at this time.