The decision vacates the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that had remanded the case to Louisiana state court. The Court concluded that Chevron’s production of crude oil was not too remote from its federal refining contract to warrant federal jurisdiction.
The underlying dispute involves environmental suits filed in 2013 by Plaquemines Parish and other Louisiana parishes against oil and gas companies. The parishes alleged that the companies lacked permits for coastal zone uses under the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act, which generally prohibited such uses without a permit unless legally commenced before 1980.
An expert report filed by the parish indicated an intent to challenge Chevron’s crude-oil production during the Second World War. The report alleged that Chevron failed to use steel tanks instead of earthen pits, should not have used vertical-drilling methods, and failed to equip fields with sufficient roads, using canals instead.
Chevron removed the suit to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §1442(a)(1), arguing that the suit related to its contractual duties to refine crude oil into aviation gasoline for the military. The District Court rejected this argument and granted the parish’s motion to remand. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that Chevron had acted under a federal officer but concluding the suit was not for or relating to those acts because the refining contract did not specify how to acquire crude oil.
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito took no part in the decision.
The Court interpreted the phrase "relating to" broadly, noting it means to stand in some relation or have bearing or concern. The Court stated that one thing can relate to another even if the connection is indirect, not specifically designed to affect it, or without a strict causal relationship. However, the ordinary meaning requires a connection that is not tenuous, remote, or peripheral.
The Court found that Chevron’s suit related to the performance of federal duties because it implicated Chevron’s wartime efforts to produce and supply aviation gasoline’s essential feedstock. Much of the crude oil produced in Plaquemines Parish was ultimately used for Chevron’s own aviation gasoline refining.
The Court rejected the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning that the refining contract did not specify how to obtain crude oil. The Court held that the ordinary meaning of "relating to" does not require the defendant to show that federal duties specifically invited the challenged conduct.
The Court also rejected the argument that the Government’s allocation of crude oil to refineries severed any relation between producing and refining. The Court stated that an act can relate to its consequences even when the causal chain includes actions by intermediaries.
The Court further disagreed with Louisiana’s argument that the removal statute requires the defendant to have been acting under a federal officer in taking the specific actions challenged. The Court held this interpretation would impermissibly conflate the "acting under" and "for or relating to" elements of the federal officer removal test.