Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, said the phrase "relating to" in the removal statute sweeps broadly and does not require a strict causal link or specific contractual direction for the challenged conduct.
The parishes had sued Chevron under Louisiana's State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act, alleging the company lacked permits for oil production and that certain pre-1980 uses were illegally commenced and therefore not covered by a statutory exemption. An expert report filed by the parish alleged Chevron failed to use steel tanks, relied on vertical-drilling methods, and used canals instead of roads.
Chevron removed the case, arguing the environmental claims related to its contractual duties to refine crude oil into aviation gasoline for the U.S. military during the Second World War. The District Court rejected that argument and remanded; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, agreeing Chevron had acted under a federal officer but that the suit was not related to those acts.
The Supreme Court found that much of the crude oil produced in Plaquemines Parish was used for Chevron's own avgas refining, and that the challenged actions allowed Chevron to increase production during the war effort.
The Court rejected the Fifth Circuit's reasoning that the refining contract did not specify how to acquire crude oil. The ordinary meaning of "relating to," Justice Thomas wrote, 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 severed the relation between producing and refining, stating that an act can relate to its consequences even when the causal chain includes actions by intermediaries.
The Court further turned aside Louisiana's contention that the statute requires the defendant to have been acting under a federal officer in taking the specific actions challenged, finding that interpretation would impermissibly conflate the "acting under" and "relating to" elements.
The judgment of the Fifth Circuit was vacated and the case was remanded.