We all know that politics makes strange bedfellows. However, the partnership between the Republican governor of Louisiana and prominent plaintiff lawyers suing energy producers on behalf of the state and local parishes is hard to square.
In the first jury verdict in a series of similar lawsuits filed in the state, Chevron was ordered to pay more than $740 million for damages it allegedly caused to the Louisiana coast. The verdict reflects why Louisiana is viewed as one of the worst “judicial hellholes” in the country. If the verdict stands on appeal, and other cases have similar outcomes, energy prices will soar across the nation, and businesses will treat Louisiana like a pariah.
How did our deep-red state get here?
New York City, Honolulu, Chicago, Vermont, California and other deep blue governments proudly file dubious lawsuits and pass outrageous laws against energy producers, even when it contributes to skyrocketing energy costs for their residents. In those instances, it’s a convenient way to attempt to raise revenue from outside corporations that have no particularly strong footprint in these communities.
You wouldn’t expect the same from Louisiana, whose energy industry employs 250,000 citizens and is a leading source of revenue for the state.
You’d expect it even less when the state is led by a Republican governor endorsed by President Trump. Gov. Jeff Landry, who took office in 2024, developed strong conservative credentials in Congress and as the state’s attorney general.
The president, his supporters nationally, and the voters who elected Landry should be asking questions. First: Why would the governor of a state that supplies a quarter of the nation’s energy supply actively participate as a plaintiff in shoddy litigation that will harm the state’s economy and undermine the administration’s agenda to re-establish the country’s energy security?
At issue is whether energy producers should have to pay for coastal erosion in the state.
According to scientists at Louisiana State University, the causes of the state’s wetland loss “are numerous and have complex interactions.” They explain that the “causes of Louisiana’s wetland loss can be put into these general process categories: (1) oceanographic (sea level rise, wave erosion and saltwater intrusion), (2) geologic (subsidence from sediment loading and dewatering — compaction, faulting, and sediment deprivation), (3) biologic (nutria and muskrat marsh destruction), (4) catastrophic events (tropical storms and droughts), and (5) human activities (levee and dam construction, canal dredging, agricultural impoundments, and fluid withdrawal).”
Because nutria, muskrats and natural weather patterns don’t make for useful targets of litigation, even in Louisiana’s plaintiff-friendly court system, the plaintiffs’ bar had to look elsewhere. As such, the basis for the litigation is World War II-era levees built under federal contract by the energy industry to meet essential federal wartime energy production quotas. Other levees were separately constructed to prevent flooding. All the levees were constructed with proper government permits.
These government-sanctioned levees, which were central to economic development, residential development, and flood prevention in the state contribute to the interruption of the natural process of depositing silt, an essential factor in preventing erosion.
It is the responsibility of local, state and federal regulators, consistent with applicable laws, to weigh the risks and benefits of any proposed levee construction and decide whether the proposed activity would be a net benefit to the population after considering the risks. In this case, it is obvious that the regulators concluded that the critical wartime energy needs, the immediate and longer-term local economic benefits of domestic energy development, and the protection of land through flood prevention, along with myriad other reasons, were enough to justify the construction of a levee system in the state, despite the risks, which, if the government wanted, could later be mitigated.
Landry’s position would require him to believe that the companies responsible for the state’s (if not the nation’s) most important industry should be held financially accountable for the downside risks of the decisions knowingly made by regulators.
Among the most curious aspects of this litigation is the role of for-profit plaintiff attorneys driving these cases. Prominent Louisiana trial attorney John Carmouche was initially seeking seeking more than $3 billion in damages from Chevron, for example, in the trial that just concluded in Plaquemines Parish. That’s just one case (out of 42 others) and one defendant in that case. Keep in mind that after Landry won his election, he appointed Carmouche to a selective position on the Louisiana State University Board of Supervisors, which affords him even greater business development opportunities. Carmouche was also a significant donor to Landry’s campaigns for governor and attorney general. Carmouche’s cozy relationship with the governor might help explain Landry’s otherwise incongruous support for the lawsuits.
Imagine a world where multiple government entities approve permits and directly fund infrastructure projects that are a boon to national security, energy security, local jobs, and responsible flood prevention, only to sue the companies who dutifully and responsibly provided the very services under contract. It’s hard to imagine any private company ever responding to Request for Proposals in that world.
So, it’s not hyperbole to suggest that Landry’s lawsuit endangers national security, domestic energy independence and overall economic well-being. In other words, as plaintiff, Landry’s current position undermines the agenda Trump was elected to advance. It should also endanger Landry’s standing in the state, where more than 60 percent of the electorate voted for that pro-energy dominance platform.