And this is why the U.S. Supreme Court should grant broad latitude for diversity cases such as Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish.
This week, the Court heard the case, focused on a narrow issue: should this kind of case be heard in federal or state courts. The minutiae of the case make it turn upon just how deputized energy companies are when the federal government gives some authority to their activities. The Court is asked to decide the level of assignment necessary to allow an entity to have a case heard in federal court as opposed to under state law.
In this case, the parish (and others consolidated into the case) accused Chevron (and the entities that it absorbed, plus others consolidated into the case) over decades of straying outside the boundaries of state law in its activities that supposedly caused environment degradation. Independent Judge Michael Clement of the 25th Judicial District ruled in the parish’s favor, slapping a $744 million judgment onto Chevron that could bring the trial lawyer firm of Talbot, Carmouche & Marcello nearly a quarter-billion dollars. Chevron contends federal law protects it from this punishment.
Clement, a trial lawyer for 20 years, first was elected as a Democrat in in 2011. Perhaps a factor to his victory was principal partners in that law firm plus others in it donated to his campaign, as well as donations coming from other firms that, with that firm, in 2013 had brought the suit against Chevron in the 25th District. They backed that up with additional donations in 2014 that may have discouraged opposition enough that Clement, then running as a Republican, won reelection uncontested. All in all, the donations were about $15,000.
Clement was reelected in 2020, again without opposition, as an independent. The trial he held last year, and he faces reelection again in 2026. Some legal experts questioned whether he handled the trial impartially, as he abruptly changed course on a judgment favoring oil companies in one instance; excluded evidence defendants said was crucial to understanding why they didn't pursue certain permits in the mid-1900s in another; and chastised defendants' lawyers for questioning whether a jurist who was employed by the plaintiffs could fairly evaluate the evidence.
This illustrated a fear that legal experts have against circumscribing too readily the ability to have a case heard in federal court for those that qualify under the Constitution’s diversity clause. As federal judges have lifetime appointments during good behavior, they have considerable insulation from outside pressure tactics. But as state judges in some states, Louisiana included, are elected, not only could they become pressured by the need to secure votes for reelection but also either withholding or delivering donations to them or their opponents to pay for that campaigning become leverage points that could include impacting their decisions.
Whether Clement reacted this way, it’s in the interest of all Americans that even the appearance of this possibility be minimized as much as can be. Note that removal to federal court doesn’t guarantee a decision one way or the other, and Chevron still could lose and that expensively in federal district court. But for the sake of confidence that justice truly is blind, the Court should rule making federal diversity expansive in these kinds of cases, thus sending this one to Louisiana’s Eastern District.
No comments:
Post a Comment