Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish | Oral Argument Date: 1/12/26 | Docket Link: Here

Question Presented: Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute

Overview: Oil companies that fueled WWII fighter planes face $744.6 million in state court verdicts for 80-year-old production methods, creating unprecedented federal contractor liability exposure with massive removal jurisdiction implications.

Posture: Fifth Circuit denied en banc rehearing by narrow 7-6 vote after split panel affirmed remand.

Main Arguments:

• Chevron (Petitioner): (1) 2011 amendment eliminated causal-nexus requirement through "relating to" language expansion; (2) Fifth Circuit improperly reinstated contractual-direction test rejected by other circuits; (3) Oil production activities directly connected to federal avgas contracts through pricing terms and wartime regulations

• Louisiana (Respondent): (1) No genuine circuit split exists among courts applying "connection or association" standard; (2) Case lacks national importance beyond fact-specific contractor disputes; (3) Federal contracts remained silent about production methods, requiring sufficient connection between challenged conduct and federal directives

Implications: Chevron victory expands federal contractor protection from state court liability for activities connected to federal work, potentially encouraging emergency contracting. Louisiana victory maintains state environmental enforcement authority while exposing federal contractors to massive local jury verdicts for wartime activities.

The Fine Print:

• 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1): "A civil action...commenced in a State court against...any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States...for or relating to any act under color of such office...may be removed"

• State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act: Requires compliance with environmental standards for oil and gas operations in Louisiana coastal zone

Primary Cases:

• Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (5th Cir. 2020): Post-2011 amendment abandoned "causal nexus" test, replacing with "connected or associated with" standard demonstrating expanded federal-officer removal scope

• Watson v. Philip Morris Cos. (4th Cir. 2007): Federal contractor removal permitted without explicit contractual direction for challenged conduct, supporting broad interpretation of "relating to" language

December delivered constitutional chaos with two emergency Supreme Court cases and a preview of January's landmark docket. From federal agents facing $10,000 bounties in Chicago to immigration judges exposing government corruption, plus six blockbuster cases that could reshape American law for decades.

• Trump v. Illinois - Presidential emergency powers meet federalism

• Margolin v. NAIJ - Immigration judges challenge speech restrictions

• January Preview - Six constitutional blockbusters including transgender sports, gun rights, and executive authority

1. Chevron v. Plaquemines - $744M WWII contractor liability
2. Little v. Hecox - Idaho transgender sports ban vs. equality rights
3. CSX Galette v. NJ Transit - State corporation sovereign immunity
4. Wolford v. Lopez - Hawaii gun permits vs. Second Amendment
5. M&K Employee Solutions v. IAM - $4.4M pension timing dispute
6. Trump v. Cook - Presidential removal of Fed Governor

• Supreme Court denies emergency stays in both cases within one week

• Federal agents operate under bounties during immigration enforcement

• Fourth Circuit orders discovery into corrupted government complaint systems

• January docket threatens to reshape constitutional rights for a generation

• $10,000 bounties placed on federal immigration officers

• Texas National Guard deployed to Illinois over state objections

• Immigration judges may bypass internal procedures to challenge speech restrictions

• Six January cases spanning Second Amendment, transgender equality, sovereign immunity, executive authority, pension law, and WWII contractor liability

• Constitutional decisions affecting daily life from mortgage rates to athletic participation

Stakes: These cases determine the balance between presidential emergency powers and federalism, federal employee speech rights versus government control, and fundamental constitutional protections that affect millions of Americans.

• Can presidents deploy military domestically without meeting rebellion standards?

• Can government silence employees then force them through corrupted complaint processes?

• Will January cases reshape constitutional law for the next thirty years?

Bottom Line: December's emergency cases and January's preview demonstrate how Supreme Court decisions directly impact daily American life - from federal law enforcement to mortgage rates to constitutional rights.

Call to Action: Share this episode with someone who thinks Supreme Court cases don't affect daily life - because these decisions determine everything from your mortgage rate to fundamental constitutional protections.

• Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube: Search "The High Court Report"

• LinkedIn: @TheHighCourtReport

• Questions: LinkedIn or Email (scotus.cases.pod@gmail.com)

This week, we'll air throwback episodes. Each episode will relate to the current cases.

Today's case is United States v. Skrmetti. I chose this case to segue into the 2026 Supreme Court calendar. In January, the Supreme Court hears two transgender cases that in some ways offshoot from Skrmetti. Here are a few details on these cases. We'll be sure to preview these cases soon. Also, check out our July 7th Roundup episode for more details.

Little v. Hecox (Idaho) | Case No. 24-38 | Docket Link: Here

1. Background: Idaho's "Fairness in Women's Sports Act" banning transgender women from women's sports teams
2. Key Player: Lindsay Hecox, transgender student at Boise State University
3. Ninth Circuit Reasoning: Applied heightened scrutiny; found likely Equal Protection violations
4. Post-Skrmetti Impact: How the medical treatment precedent affects sports participation

West Virginia v. B.P.J. | Case No. 24-43 | Docket Link: Here

1. Background: West Virginia's H.B. 3293 categorical sports ban
2. Key Player: B.P.J., 14-year-old transgender student with amended birth certificate
3. Unique Factors: Puberty blockers, competitive performance, individual circumstances
4. Fourth Circuit's Approach: Case-by-case analysis vs. categorical rules
5. Strategic Litigation: Why B.P.J. argued for waiting on Skrmetti decision

Here's the background on United States v. Skrmetti.

Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1 (SB1) in 2023, prohibiting healthcare providers from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to minors for treating gender dysphoria or helping them transition, while still allowing these treatments for other medical conditions like congenital defects or precocious puberty. Three transgender minors, their parents, and a doctor sued under the Equal Protection Clause, with a district court initially blocking the law after finding transgender individuals deserve heightened constitutional protection. The Sixth Circuit reversed, ruling the law only needed to meet the lowest constitutional standard (rational basis review), prompting the Supreme Court to take the case.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender minors does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the law classifies based on age and medical use rather than sex or transgender status, requiring only rational basis review which the law satisfies.

Analysis (3 sentences): The Court rejected arguments that the law discriminates based on sex, finding that it applies