Hornbeck Offshore Services, L.L.C. v. Salazar, 713 F.3d 787

Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill on April 20, 2010 prompted a six-month moratorium on new offshore drilling by Interior.
May Directive suspended new offshore drilling and directed MMS not to process new drilling permits for six months; Notice to Lessees conveyed this to operators.
Hornbeck and others sued, alleging APA violations and statutory overreach under OCSLA; district court granted a preliminary injunction blocking the moratorium.
Interior issued a July Directive after rescinding the May Directive; district court held mootness issues but the injunction remained central to contempt allegations.
Hornbeck sought contempt and fees; district court found civil contempt and awarded fees; Fifth Circuit reversed on contempt and addressed EAJA fee issues.
Dissent urged deference to district court findings and warned against circumvention of court orders by executive actions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Interior violate the injunction by actions constituting contempt?	Hornbeck argues Interior disobeyed the injunction via remand avoidance, public resolve to restore moratorium, and industry communications.	Interior contends no express remand obligation existed and actions did not violate the injunction’s terms.	No civil contempt; actions did not violate the injunction as drafted or reasonably interpreted.
Is EAJA relief available for Hornbeck’s fees?	Hornbeck seeks fees under EAJA as prevailing party.	Interior asserts insufficient briefing and absent bad-faith finding; procedurally premature.	EAJA relief not awarded; argument inadequately briefed and lacking bad-faith finding.

Travelhost, Inc. v. Blandford, 68 F.3d 958 (5th Cir. 1995) (clear and convincing standard for civil contempt)
Shafer v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 376 F.3d 386 (5th Cir. 2004) (definition of clear and convincing evidence in contempt)
Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 228 F.3d 574 (5th Cir. 2000) (injunction specificity and remedial flexibility)
Jupiter Energy Corp. v. FERC, 407 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2005) (requirement of 'reasoned analysis' under APA)
Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2005) (precedent on contempt standards and fairness)
Boland Marine & Mfg. Co. v. Rihner, 41 F.3d 997 (5th Cir. 1995) (EAJA applicability and prevailing party issues)
Dearmore v. City of Garland, 519 F.3d 517 (5th Cir. 2008) (three-factor test for prevailing party under EAJA)
Pederson v. La. State Univ., 213 F.3d 858 (5th Cir. 2000) (procedural posture and EAJA-related considerations)