On April 4, a Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, jury delivered a remarkable verdict: Chevron was ordered to pay $744 million in damages for purported coastal degradation associated with oil production dating back to World War II.
While environmentalists and local government bureaucrats are celebrating what they perceive as an economic boon, others of us see a different picture. We observe an assault on Louisiana’s business climate and a threat to public-private cooperation essential for national defense. Furthermore, the recent developments in Louisiana strike at the core of President Donald Trump’s initiatives to restore U.S. energy dominance and military readiness.
The decision from the Plaquemines Parish courthouse has significant policy implications beyond that jurisdiction and will likely have adverse effects in various areas.
Led by lead plaintiff Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, the case, Plaquemines Parish v. Chevron USA Inc., was the first of over 40 similar lawsuits filed by Louisiana parishes targeting oil and gas producers for activities conducted decades ago, all of which were legally executed under federally permitted wartime directives.
These cases target the very companies that powered America’s war effort in World War II. By punishing them retroactively, we are rewriting history and turning our backs on the companies that once answered the nation’s call.
These lawsuits are indefensible. Companies acting under federal orders during wartime should not face lawsuits 80 years later. This is not merely a jurisdictional matter; it is a national security issue.
As retired Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen and Gen. Richard Myers warned in their Supreme Court amicus brief, allowing state courts to second-guess federal wartime decisions “creates a serious risk that, in the future, private industry will not readily answer the federal government’s call when the nation needs it most.”
In any national emergency, our military depends on industrial support. Undermining the legal certainty of these relationships sends a dangerous message: Patriotism and service to the country can be punished decades later in a courtroom.
If these lawsuits are allowed to proliferate in local courts, they will discourage cooperation with the federal government—and damage America’s ability to wage and win future wars. That is why this case should ultimately be heard in federal court and underscores why the U.S. Supreme Court should review this case. Past courts’ failure to recognize the federal stakes in this litigation paved the way for a $744 million verdict based on federally approved conduct.
The precedent set here jeopardizes military readiness, weakens supply chain trust, and endangers future public-private partnerships that our defense infrastructure depends on.
Dating back to World War II, the federal government asked oil companies in the Gulf region to utilize the Louisiana coastal wetlands to access oil reserves for the war effort. These companies were acting in patriotic service, transforming Louisiana’s coastline into a critical strategic asset in the fight against tyranny. They answered the call not for profit—but for the country. The production of crude oil at the time was refined into aviation gasoline for use by the military. Those companies agreed and helped America win.
Decades later, Louisiana officials like Landry are holding today’s oil producers liable for decisions made during wartime. This will likely hinder any future cooperation between oil producers and national security interests.
This court outcome could also potentially lead to a decrease in future oil production, not only in Plaquemines Parish, but across Louisiana. If legally permitted activity leads to liability, why would anyone invest there? Thousands of secure, high-paying local jobs could suddenly be in jeopardy, dealing a devastating blow to the Trump administration’s efforts to achieve energy dominance.
Undermining energy production also undermines defense. Our energy sector is vital to deterrence and national security. America will lose a major pillar of its plan to permanently end dependence on foreign oil. Landry, usually an ally of the president, is badly missing the mark by supporting these cases.
Lastly, a case with implications for national security, federal energy policy, and military readiness should not be tried at the parish level. Only federal court is the appropriate venue for this case, a point emphasized by Mullen and Myers. When companies follow federal orders in times of crisis, they deserve legal protection—not retroactive punishment.
Protecting our natural environment is critical, and the Gulf’s ecosystem is a highly sensitive area. Blaming companies that followed federal orders brands Louisiana as a legal hazard—a place where businesses are extorted decades after the fact by trial lawyers hoping for substantial paydays.
Plaquemines Parish may celebrate today, but the ruling will have consequences far beyond its borders. It risks driving energy investment, military partnerships, and economic growth out of Louisiana—and undermining America’s ability to respond in its next hour of need.
At stake is more than just the future of energy in Louisiana—it is the principle that when American companies answer their country’s call, they will be supported, not betrayed.
This article was originally published at www.dailysignal.com
