Forum
U.S. Supreme Court
Case Status
Docket Number
Term
2024 Term
Lower Court Opinion
Questions Presented
1. Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute.
2. Whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract.
Case Updates
Supreme Court holds that to satisfy the federal-officer removal statute’s “relating to” requirement, a defendant does not need to show that its federal duties specifically required or strictly caused the challenged conduct
April 17, 2026
The Court further holds that because Chevron’s wartime crude-oil production was closely connected to its wartime aviation-gasoline refining for the military, a lawsuit challenging that production “relates to” that refining.
The U.S. Chamber has filed several amicus briefs in this litigation.
U.S. Chamber files coalition amicus brief urging Supreme Court to enforce 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute, which expanded the availability of removal to lawsuits “for or relating to any act under color of [federal] office"
September 11, 2025
U.S. Chamber Coalition Amicus Brief
The Fifth Circuit’s restrictive test, which requires a lawsuit to be connected to a specific directive in a federal contract, is inconsistent with the statutory text and unmoored from the realities of modern government contracting.
William M. Jay and Andrew Kim of Goodwin Procter LLP served as outside counsel.
Cert. petition granted
June 16, 2025
U.S. Chamber files coalition amicus brief urging Supreme Court to enforce 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute, which expanded the availability of removal to lawsuits “for or relating to any act under color of [federal] office”
March 24, 2025
U.S. Chamber Coalition Amicus Brief
Despite that amendment, the Fifth Circuit panel narrowed the availability of removal by requiring a federal contractor to show that in carrying out the contract, it was following a “relevant federal directive” issued by a federal officer. The U.S. Chamber has filed several amicus briefs in this litigation.
Andrew Kim and William M. Jay of Goodwin Procter LLP served as outside counsel.
Case Documents
- Fifth Circuit Opinion -- Plaquemines Parish v. BP America Production Co. (Fifth Circuit)
- U.S. Chamber Coalition Amicus Brief (cert.) -- Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish (U.S. Supreme Court)
- U.S. Chamber Coalition Amicus Brief (merits) -- Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish (U.S. Supreme Court)
- Opinion -- Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish (U.S. Supreme Court)