(The Center Square) – Lawyers and policy advocates warned in a recent webinar that Louisiana’s long-running coastal erosion lawsuits are causing serious economic harm, while attorneys for the parishes say the cases are a legitimate tool to hold industry accountable and fund badly needed restoration.
The discussion, hosted the Scalia Law School’s Law and Economics Center at George Mason University, focused on Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish, The case is before the U.S. Supreme Court and could determine whether the lawsuits remain in state courts or are moved to federal jurisdiction.
Melissa Landry, vice president of the Pelican Institute for Public Policy, said the lawsuits have exacted a measurable toll on Louisiana’s economy since they began in 2013.
“A 2019 Pelican Institute report estimated Louisiana has lost between $44 million and $113 million annually because of this litigation,” Landry said. “More than 2,000 jobs disappeared in just the first two years, and state and local governments have forfeited up to $22.6 million a year in royalty revenue – money that could have gone to schools, roads, and coastal restoration efforts.”
Mike Fragoso, a partner at Torridon Law and former senior Justice Department official, said the legal climate is accelerating the energy sector’s decline.
“Twenty-five years ago, oil and gas made up a third of Louisiana’s economy,” Fragoso said. “Now it’s 14%. Since these suits began in 2013, oil and gas extraction jobs have fallen by 41%, and Louisiana crude production has plunged by 57% – while production in Texas surged 23%.”
Fragoso warned that a $745 million jury verdict against Chevron could be just the beginning, with “tens of billions of dollars in total exposure” across dozens of similar cases.
Parish attorneys reject claims that the lawsuits are an economic threat or a distortion of justice. In a filing quoted during the webinar, Plaquemines Parish attorney Victor Marcello countered arguments that federal wartime interests justify moving the case to federal court.
Marcello pointed to the majority opinion’s finding that energy defendants failed to show that stopping the challenged practices would have undermined World War II fuel production.
“The federal interest in refined avgas was in fact served by the allocation program, which distributed crude to refiners under procedures that ignored the refiner’s crude production activities and allowed crude to be efficiently distributed and purchased on the open market,” Marcello wrote.
Marcello also dismissed concerns about state court bias as “mere lawyer-driven concoctions” and noted that any money recovered must be dedicated to “integrated coastal protection” under Louisiana law.
“The calamitous consequences of the majority’s ruling predicted in Amici’s briefing are … counterfactual,” Marcello said, adding that state courts are “generally the equals of federal ones” and “superior” on questions of state law.
At issue before the Supreme Court is whether Chevron and other defendants qualify for federal officer removal – a statute that would allow them to have the cases heard in federal court, where juries are drawn from across the district rather than just the suing parish.
Supporters of removal say federal jurisdiction is essential to shield federal contractors from local bias.
Attorneys representing Plaquemines contend Congress intended to give states primary authority over managing coastal resources under the Coastal Zone Management Act and that the defendants’ World War II era drilling was never a governmental task.
The high court’s ruling could reshape the legal landscape for more than 40 pending suits and will have sweeping implications for Louisiana’s energy economy, coastal restoration funding, and the balance of power between state and federal courts.
