(The Center Square) – Lawyers and policy advocates warned that Louisiana’s long-running coastal erosion lawsuits are causing serious economic harm, while attorneys for the parishes say the cases are a legitimate tool to hold industry accountable and fund badly needed restoration.
The webinar discussion, hosted the Scalia Law School’s Law and Economics Center at George Mason University, focused on Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish, The case is before the U.S. Supreme Court and could determine whether the lawsuits remain in state courts or are moved to federal jurisdiction.
Melissa Landry, vice president of the Pelican Institute for Public Policy, said the lawsuits have exacted a measurable toll on Louisiana’s economy since they began in 2013.
“A 2019 Pelican Institute report estimated Louisiana has lost between $44 million and $113 million annually because of this litigation,” Landry said. “More than 2,000 jobs disappeared in just the first two years, and state and local governments have forfeited up to $22.6 million a year in royalty revenue – money that could have gone to schools, roads, and coastal restoration efforts.”
Mike Fragoso, a partner at Torridon Law and former senior Justice Department official, said the legal climate is accelerating the energy sector’s decline.
“Twenty-five years ago, oil and gas made up a third of Louisiana’s economy,” Fragoso said. “Now it’s 14%. Since these suits began in 2013, oil and gas extraction jobs have fallen by 41%, and Louisiana crude production has plunged by 57% – while production in Texas surged 23%.”
Fragoso warned that a $745 million jury verdict against Chevron could be just the beginning, with “tens of billions of dollars in total exposure” across dozens of similar cases.
Parish attorneys reject claims that the lawsuits are an economic threat or a distortion of justice. In a filing quoted during the webinar, Plaquemines Parish attorney Victor Marcello countered arguments that federal wartime interests justify moving the case to federal court.
Marcello pointed to the majority opinion’s finding that energy defendants failed to show that stopping the challenged practices would have undermined World War II fuel production.
“The federal interest in refined avgas was in fact served by the allocation program, which distributed crude to refiners under procedures that ignored the refiner’s crude production activities and allowed crude to be efficiently distributed and purchased on the open market,” Marcello wrote.
Read more at The Center Square.
