Attorneys for energy companies accused of billions of dollars in coastal erosion damage in Cameron Parish have asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency action and change of venue.
The application to Justice Samuel Alito was filed by attorneys for BP America Production Co., Hilcorp Energy Co. and Shell Oil Co. on Oct. 17. It is one of multiple civil lawsuits filed on behalf of parishes over coastal environmental damage that plaintiffs say is the result of energy companies’ drilling and production activities over many decades.
“Applicants seek emergency relief for a change of venue for a trial to commence on Nov. 27…” the energy companies’ application for an emergency stay states. “On that date, the three out-of-state energy companies that are applicants here will be forced to defend a trial in a case brought by Cameron Parish, Louisiana, that seeks more than $7 billion in front of a venire of 4,000 residents of the very same parish, every one of whom has a substantial personal and financial interest in rendering a verdict for their home parish.”
The application notes that Louisiana courts, including the state Supreme Court, have denied efforts to have the trial transferred to a location other than Cameron Parish.
“This unprecedented situation threatens the clearly established federal due-process rights of these defendants to have their case adjudicated by a neutral, disinterested decisionmaker,” the application says.
The defendant companies are asking the high court to block the start of the state trial until the court decides whether to grant all the requests in the application. They also point to what they say are financial interests among potential jurors that make them biased and thus deprive the companies of due process..
“Every single one of them has a personal and financial interest in a verdict for the parish because any award will go to restore land loss in the parish and – according to the parish itself – will be used to create jobs, economic opportunities and higher property values for residents,” the application states. “Thus, applicants cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial without a change of venue. …”
A response from attorneys representing the parish that was filed this month with the U.S. Supreme Court challenges the argument that Cameron Parish residents have been informed about their interests in the outcome of the case.
“This argument altogether ignores abundant evidence of widely publicized industry-friendly statements and publications claiming the parish’s … claims (under the Louisiana State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act, or SLCRMA) are unfounded,” the response says. “In a recent election, five of the seven members of the parish governing authority … who supported the parish’s SLCRMA suits were removed from office.”
Edward Richards, a senior fellow with Louisiana State University Law Center’s Climate Change Law and Policy Project, noted that defendants originally sought to move the case to federal court on fair-trial grounds, but a federal district court and federal appeals court supported trying the case in state court.
“When the federal court sent the case to be tried in state court, it knew which state (parish) court would try the case and the demographics of the parish,” Richards told the Louisiana Record in an email. “There is no new information about the parish for the court to review, so there is little likelihood that the Supreme Court will stay the case.”
But he added that the likelihood of this outcome is not zero, since the current Supreme Court has made wide use of emergency orders.
Some oil company activities have caused environmental damage, according to Richards, but the true cause of coastal land loss is due to natural processes and the current rise in sea levels.
“These parish cases are a complicated mix of legacy claims about the usual damage done by drilling and production, such as contaminated land and allegations about the effect on coastal land loss,” Richards said. “Cutting canals and not filling them back in does hasten the loss of salt marsh. There is some evidence that there is increased subsidence around some oil and gas production sites, which could also contribute to the loss of salt marsh.”
But he stressed that there are more important factors driving coastal land loss.
“... The real cause of coastal land loss is the subsidence from the normal delta processes as the river abandons land that it once built up for a new channel,” Richards said.