Drakes Bay Oyster Company v. Sally Jewell
747 F.3d 1073
9th Cir.2013Background
- Drakes Bay Oyster Company challenges the Secretary of the Interior’s decision to let its Drakes Estero permit expire under Section 124, 123 Stat. 2904 (2009).
- Section 124 authorizes, but does not require, a 10-year extension of the existing permit for Drakes Estero, with discretion to consider terms and conditions.
- The Secretary conducted NEPA review and prepared a DEIS and final EIS, but ultimately let the permit lapse for policy and wilderness-designation reasons.
- Drakes Estero is part of Point Reyes National Seashore, an area designated with potential wilderness status and subject to policies regulating commercial uses.
- Drakes Bay sought preliminary relief; the district court denied, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of injunctive relief while reviewing the Secretary’s legality under Section 124.
- There is a dissent arguing that Section 124 was intended to override the Interior Department’s misinterpretation of the Wilderness Act and that the Secretary’s decision was arbitrary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Section 124 notwithstanding clause | Drakes Bay: clause overrides conflicting laws | Secretary: clause authorizes but does not compel issuance | Notwithstanding clause precludes other laws from preventing issuance, but review limited to legal compliance with §124 |
| NEPA applicability to the Secretary’s decision | NEPA violation akin to inaction triggering EIS | NEPA not required for denial, or any errors harmless | NEPA review conducted; any errors harmless; denial not remanded for NEPA failure |
| Adequacy of the Secretary’s decision under §124 and statutory mandates | Secretary misread §124 as binding contrary wilderness policies | Secretary correctly weighed §124 authority and policy | Secretary’s interpretation was permissible; no statutory mandate violated |
| Preliminary injunction standard and relief | Serious questions on merits and balance tipping in plaintiff’s favor | Balance of equities against Drakes Bay; public interest weighs against relief | No likelihood of irreparable harm or misbalance; injunction not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Ness Inv. Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., Forest Serv., 512 F.2d 706 (9th Cir. 1975) (review when statutory mandates are involved; abuse of discretion review limited to legal mandates)
- Ramsey v. Kantor, 96 F.3d 434 (9th Cir. 1996) (major federal action; NEPA implications for permits)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (S. Ct. 2009) (agency actions must be reasonably discernible even if not crystal clear)
- Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573 (S. Ct. 1994) (legislative history cannot override statutory text)