Example Image
Civitas Outlook
Topic
Economic Dynamism
Published on
Jun 4, 2025
Contributors
Michael Toth
Sunset over Plaquemines Parish, LA (shutterstock).

Will Companies Doing Business with the Federal Government Face New Litigation Threats?

Contributors
Michael Toth
Michael Toth
Research Fellow
Michael Toth
Summary
Trial lawyers in Louisiana threaten massive liability against Chevron USA for providing high-octane fuel to the American Army in World War II. Will the Supreme Court take the case?
Summary
Trial lawyers in Louisiana threaten massive liability against Chevron USA for providing high-octane fuel to the American Army in World War II. Will the Supreme Court take the case?
Listen to this article

Whether or not the Supreme Court decides to grant a closely watched petition for certiorari from the energy services company Chevron USA, Inc. will have huge implications in the years to come for the energy sector and the American consumer.

The outcome of Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish will determine not only where major oil and gas producers will invest their shareholder capital in the future, but also whether they will instead spend billions on arbitrary and retroactive state court proceedings belaboring events going back to World War II.

While the legal issue is arcane, the practical consequences are enormous for all industries that do business with the federal government. The case asks whether disputes over coastal erosion between bayou municipalities and major energy providers (of which there are currently 43) belong in state or federal courts.

The companies face allegations related to the methods they used to extract crude oil used to produce high-octane aviation gasoline during WWII, when U.S. energy producers responded to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s order to provide “adequate supplies of petroleum for the successful prosecution of the war.”

Today, on the eightieth anniversary of the Allied victory, Louisiana trial lawyers are opportunistically asking for billions in liability, using friendly state courts to claim that those WW II federal production activities by oil companies make them liable for the 2,000 square miles of Louisiana wetlands and barrier islands lost to coastal erosion since the 1930s. The claims ignore years of research and findings that the early 1900s levees on the Mississippi are the main culprit.

Not only does this jurisdictional issue affect whether trial lawyers will succeed in racking up tens of billions in judgments against American oil and gas companies, it also establishes a precedent to ensnare future military contractors, health care companies, and other federal contractors in hostile state court litigation. Last month, in another coastal erosion case tried in a Louisiana court, a jury returned a $744.6 million verdict based on liability theories that federal courts have rejected.

The energy companies are relying on their right under federal law to remove cases from state court that “relate to” federal contracts. It is obvious in the Chevron case that the methods used to extract crude oil were to satisfy federal contracts for aviation fuel. When dealing with wartime military contracts, it’s nonsensical, to quote former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers and Michael Mullen, “to force additional procedural hurdles and extra clauses to make crystal clear that the materials needed for the end-product do indeed ‘relate to’ the federal directive.”

Indeed, over-lawyering is not what drove the Allies to victory. When a lack of fuel halted the Third Army in August 1944, General Patton explained as much to General Omar Bradley: “Dammit, Brad, just give me 400,000 gallons of gasoline, and I’ll put you inside Germany in two days.” If trial lawyers had their way then, U.S. petroleum companies would have been embroiled in depositions, not helping American and Allied reinforcements overcome fuel shortages after the Normandy landing.

A finding of no federal relationship in the land-loss litigation would whitewash the productive war-era collaboration between the energy industry and the government. It would also override the plain language of the federal removal statute by remanding the cases to state court. As many historians have pointed out, the massive wartime increase in oil and gas production was the product of “an effective government-industry combine.” FDR recognized the oil industry’s crucial ability to mobilize capital and technology to fuel Allied bombers, ships, tanks, and trucks. He appointed his close confidant, Interior Secretary Harold Ickes, to head the Petroleum Administration for War (PAW), a special agency created in 1942 to ensure sufficient energy supplies for the war effort. For that reason, three-fourths of the PAW’s senior staff were recruited from petroleum companies.

FDR’s energy bet paid off. By 1945, the United States was producing 514,000 barrels daily of high-octane gasoline, more than twelve times the total production capacity in 1940 and enough to supply 90 percent of the Allies’ aviation fuel requirements. Even Stalin, a sworn enemy of Western capitalism, couldn’t help but raise a glass to “the American oil industry” during the war’s darkest hours.

Instead of learning the correct lessons that a productive collaboration between industry and government saved the lives of many Americans during World War II, greedy trial lawyers today would rather punish an essential sector for their own gain. The Supreme Court should take up Chevron’s case and bring an end to this shakedown.

Michael Toth is a practicing lawyer and a research fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.

10:13
1x
10:13
More articles

The Incapable Congress

Constitutionalism
Jul 21, 2025

Civitas Conversations: Michael Toth on Zohran Mamdani and the Future of Progressivism

Politics
Jul 18, 2025
View all

Join the newsletter

Receive new publications, news, and updates from the Civitas Institute.

Sign up
More on

Economic Dynamism

AI and the Future of Society and Economy

Large language and generative AI models like ChatGPT are the equivalent of the first automobiles: fun to play with, somewhat unreliable, and maybe a little dangerous. But over time, the lesson for will be clear: Who Learns Fastest, Wins.

Joel Kotkin, Marshall Toplansky
Economic Dynamism
Jul 17, 2025
Automated Detection of Emotion in Central Bank Communication: A Warning

Can LLMs help us better understand the role of emotion in central bank communication?

Carola Binder, Nicole Baerg
Economic Dynamism
Jul 1, 2025
Defending Technological Dynamism & the Freedom to Innovate in the Age of AI

Human flourishing, economic growth, and geopolitical resilience requires innovation—especially in artificial intelligence.

Adam Thierer
Economic Dynamism
Jun 6, 2025
Partisan Trust in the Federal Reserve

This paper examines partisanship in public perceptions of the Federal Reserve.

Carola Binder, Cody Couture, Abhiprerna Smit
Economic Dynamism
Apr 22, 2025
No items found.
Students from China Are Essential for America

An appropriately curated student visa policy in vital research fields like AI and quantum can combine careful risk management with common sense. The benefits to the U.S. will last for generations.

Arthur Herman, Christopher Monroe
Economic Dynamism
Jul 8, 2025
Firm Investment and the User Cost of Capital: New U.S. Corporate Tax Reform Evidence

This working paper analyzes the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 to examine how corporate tax reform impacts rates of investment.

Jonathan S. Hartley, Kevin A. Hassett, Joshua D. Rauh
Economic Dynamism
Jul 7, 2025
It’s Not Easy, but We Can All Learn to Think like Adam Smith

To truly understand what a dynamic economy requires, we would do well to recover the 18th-century sensibility that understood dynamism as a social and cultural phenomenon as much as an economic one.

Ryan Streeter
Economic Dynamism
Jun 18, 2025
Locked Out of the Dream: Regulation Making Homes Unaffordable Around the World

The first in a two-part series on the global housing crisis.

Joel Kotkin
Economic Dynamism
Jun 5, 2025

Richard Epstein: Law and Economics of Public Sector Unions

Economic Dynamism
Jun 19, 2025
1:05

Can the U.S. Defense Industrial Base Meet Today’s Challenges?

Economic Dynamism
May 13, 2025
1:05

Virginia Postrel and Adam Thierer on Big Trends and Big Ideas in Dynamism

Economic Dynamism
Apr 29, 2025
1:05

Joel Mokyr on American Dynamism vs. Techno-pessimism

Economic Dynamism
Apr 29, 2025
1:05

Arthur Herman on Mobility, Markets, and Natural Law

Economic Dynamism
Apr 29, 2025
1:05
No items found.
No items found.
Stablecoin and the Feds

What Does the House’s STABLE Act Mean for Free Markets?

Julia R. Cartwright
Economic Dynamism
Jul 17, 2025
Free Markets, Economic Growth, and the Restoration of Civic Culture

It is cooperation, not oppression, that is so deeply embedded in our way of life.

David C. Rose
Economic Dynamism
Jul 15, 2025
AI on the Brain

A new study predicts a "likely decrease in learning skills, as LLMs reduce the cognitive effort required for writing," translating to poorer long-term knowledge retention.

Rachel Lomasky
Economic Dynamism
Jul 10, 2025
Escape From New York

With Mamdani rising in New York, Texas can now offer New York’s leading businesses a package deal: relocate to Texas and list on the TXSE. Call it the Texas Two-Step.

Michael Toth
Economic Dynamism
Jul 7, 2025
No items found.