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.