AFPI Celebrates Supreme Court Victory Affecting American Energy Producers & National Security

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) applauds the Supreme Court’s decision today in Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish, a case that addresses whether state and local governments can weaponize lawsuits against private companies to hold them liable for past activities which were indispensable to the execution of federal contracts.

“This is a clear and decisive win for American energy producers and national security,” said Nick Wanic at AFPI. “We applaud the Supreme Court for its refusal to strip vital protections from conduct that was both lawful at the time and crucial to American’s efforts to save the world from tyranny. Whenever the federal government calls upon private industry to contribute to the defense of our Nation, it is essential those called upon are ready, willing, and able to answer the call.”

The case arose from claims brought in state court by Louisiana parishes against private government contractors, alleging environmental damage related to oil production activities. However, the oil production in question, pursuant to a contract with the Department of War, was undertaken to produce aviation fuel during World War II. Because private companies were performing an invaluable service to the nation during a time of war they ought to be entitled to a federal venue for claims concerning conduct closely related to the performance of these invaluable services and materials.

AFPI filed an amicus brief raising concerns that refusing this protection would chill the vital cooperation between private industry and the federal government during times of national crisis, endangering national security and limiting our military’s effectiveness. The Court’s unanimous decision echoes this same concern: that restricting removal would expose federal contractors to state-court litigation that could interfere with federal war efforts and dampen participation by private companies supporting the military. By reaffirming a broad removal standard, the Court preserved the federal forum for disputes implicating federally directed activities, consistent with our argument that such protection is necessary to ensure the effective execution of national defense operations.