683 F.3d 158
5th Cir.2012Background
- Sierra Club, Gulf Restoration Network, and Center challenge 16 DOI plan approvals under OCSLA and NEPA after the Deepwater Horizon spill.
- Petitions argue DOI failed to consider the spill in deepwater drilling approvals and applied improper NEPA categorical exclusions.
- DOI approvals included nine exploratory plans and three DOCDs (Development Operations Coordination Documents) affecting Gulf of Mexico drilling.
- OCSLA divides offshore actions into four stages; this case concerns the third (exploration) and fourth (development/production) stages.
- The court addresses standing, mootness, appellate jurisdiction under 43 U.S.C. § 1349, and the exhaustion requirement of § 1349(c)(3)(A).
- Court ultimately dismisses twelve petitions for lack of exhaustion and four as moot; DOCDs and EPs remain subject to appellate review but only if exhaustion is satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioners have standing to sue | Sierra Club et al. have organizational standing based on members’ injuries. | DOI/defendants contest standing for the petitioners. | Petitioners have organizational and member standing. |
| Whether petitions are moot | Some plans moot due to supersession or cancellation. | Mootness defeats review where plans were superseded or cancelled. | Four petitions dismissed as moot; others addressed on exhaustion grounds. |
| Whether the petitioners may be reviewed under § 1349(c)(2) for EPs/DOCDs | EPs and DOCDs fall within judicial review in the courts of appeals asʻDOE actions under § 1349(c)(2). | DOCDs are not reviewable or require different review. | DOCDs are reviewable as modified forms of DPPs; EPs and DOCDs fall under § 1349(c)(2). |
| Whether § 1349(c)(3)(A) (participation requirement) is jurisdictional | Nonparticipation should be excused given DOI posting issues; exhaustion should be excused. | 1349(c)(3)(A) is nonjurisdictional but mandatory; no excuse shown. | 1349(c)(3)(A) is nonjurisdictional; no excusable failure to participate shown. |
| Whether the petitioners can obtain relief despite nonparticipation | Equitable exception should excuse failure to participate due to DOI posting failures. | No established exception applies; cannot remand without exhaustion. | No excusable exception; petitions dismissed for lack of exhaustion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Texans United for a Safe Econ. Educ. Fund v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 207 F.3d 789 (5th Cir. 2000) (organization standing framework)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements)
- Sierra Club v. Glickman, 156 F.3d 606 (5th Cir. 1998) (causation and redressability in OCSLA context)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 130 S. Ct. 1237 (2010) (nonjurisdictional filing requirements; Arbaugh framework)
- Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (jurisdictional labels; distinction between jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional rules)
- Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (exhaustion and jurisdictional analysis framework)
- Bowen v. Michigan Acad. of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667 (1986) (presumption of judicial review; exhaustion context)
- Consolidated Bearings Co. v. United States, 348 F.3d 997 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (exhaustion context; not controlling here)
- Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (notice and rulemaking context; inapposite here)