The question
Whether Chevron's challenged crude-oil production relates to its federal duties closely enough to satisfy the "relating to" requirement of the federal officer removal statute.
Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish
What the Court decided
The Court held that Chevron satisfied the "relating to" requirement of the federal officer removal statute. Chevron plausibly alleged a close relationship, not a tenuous, remote, or peripheral one, between its challenged crude-oil production and its federal avgas refining duties. The Court read "relating to" broadly, so a removing defendant need not show that federal duties specifically required or strictly caused the challenged conduct, while still requiring a connection that is not tenuous, remote, or peripheral.
How the justices split
8-0The Court's opinion
Thomas, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
The phrase relating to sweeps broadly and can cover connections that are indirect, not specifically designed to affect, and without a strict causal relationship, so a removing defendant need not show its federal duties specifically required or strictly caused the challenged conduct. The ordinary meaning is not so broad as to be meaningless and still requires a connection that is not tenuous, remote, or peripheral. Chevron plausibly alleged such a close relationship between its crude-oil production and its federal avgas refining duties.
Concurring in the judgment
Jackson, writing alone
Jackson agreed with the judgment but wrote separately, filing an opinion concurring in the judgment. The syllabus excerpt does not state the reasoning of the separate opinion.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Jackson filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Alito took no part in the decision of the case.
Source: syllabus, lineup
The Court held that Chevron satisfied the relating to requirement of the federal officer removal statute by plausibly alleging a close relationship between its crude-oil production and its federal avgas refining duties.
Source: syllabus, Held
A removing defendant need not show that its federal duties specifically required or strictly caused the challenged conduct, but the connection may not be tenuous, remote, or peripheral.
Source: syllabus, Held