Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish — Does Wartime Work Reach This Far? Section 1442 | Argument (2026)

Full oral argument in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, No. 24-813, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 12, 2026. Justice Alito was recused and did not participate in this argument. Complete and unedited, with the official transcript as captions. The question: The federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. §1442(a)(1), lets a defendant "acting under" a federal officer remove a suit "relating to" that direction. Louisiana parishes sued oil companies over coastal damage, including production carried out under federal wartime direction in the 1940s. When does a private company's wartime work under federal direction make it a person "acting under" a federal officer, and how closely must the claims relate to that direction? Arguing: • Paul D. Clement, Counsel — for the Petitioners • Aaron Z. Roper, Assistant to the Solicitor General — for the United States, amicus curiae supporting Petitioners • Benjamin Aguiñaga, Solicitor General — for the Respondents Decided April 17, 2026 · 8–0. 103 F. 4th 324, vacated and remanded. Thomas, J., joined by Roberts, C. J., and Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, JJ. Concurring: Jackson, J., concurring in the judgment. alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. 608 U. S. 1 (2026). CHAPTERS 0:00 Case called — Chief Justice Roberts · Opening — Paul D. Clement · P. 4 5:18 Jackson: the amici's third option · P. 8 10:25 Sotomayor: where is the stopping point? · P. 14 17:03 Barrett: not deciding that here · P. 20 19:55 Clement: “acting under” is not enough · P. 24 27:57 Barrett: grossly mischaracterized? · P. 33 32:58 Opening — Aaron Z. Roper, for United States, amicus · P. 39 34:35 Thomas: a conforming amendment? · P. 40 36:37 Roberts: how often must we say it? · P. 43 39:20 Roper: courts can use common sense · P. 47 44:01 Kagan: the private airline crash · P. 53 50:22 Opening — Benjamin Aguiñaga, for Respondents · P. 61 58:28 Jackson: conflating the prongs · P. 70 1:01:16 Aguiñaga: the mismatch problem · P. 72 1:08:55 Sotomayor: lose one, lose both? · P. 81 1:14:16 Rebuttal — Paul D. Clement · P. 88 1:17:23 The case is submitted · P. 92 SOURCES • Transcript: supremecourt.gov, No. 24-813 (Official — Subject to Final Review) • Audio: supremecourt.gov, the Court's own recording of the argument • Opinion: 608 U. S. 1 (2026) — supremecourt.gov, the Court's preliminary print — https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions... Nothing here is edited, summarised or reconstructed. The Court bans cameras, so no video of this argument exists; this is the complete audio record as released. Every caption is the official transcript verbatim, with the transcript page shown on screen so any quote can be checked against the record. The Court revises what it publishes — argument transcripts carry “Official — Subject to Final Review” and slip opinions are reissued — and a decision arrives long after the argument. This description is updated as the record changes: the decision is added when it is handed down, and the citation gains its page number when the volume assigns one. The spoken text is never edited. #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #FederalCourts #SCOTUSNotice