303 F. Supp. 3d 985
D. Alaska2018Background
- Plaintiffs (environmental organizations) challenge Executive Order 13795, in which President Trump directed reopening of Arctic and Atlantic areas previously withdrawn from oil and gas leasing under OCSLA, and directed expedited consideration of seismic permits and lease sales.
- Plaintiffs allege seismic surveying and consequent oil and gas activity will imminently harm marine life (marine mammals, fish, shellfish) and harm plaintiffs’ members who use and enjoy those areas.
- Defendants are President Trump and Cabinet Secretaries (Interior, Commerce); intervenors include American Petroleum Institute and State of Alaska.
- Plaintiffs assert the President acted ultra vires under OCSLA § 12(a) and exceeded Article II authority, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief (primarily against subordinate officials).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (sovereign immunity, lack of private right of action, inability to grant declaratory relief against President, lack of Article III standing); API argued exclusive D.C. Circuit review under OCSLA jurisdictional provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereign immunity | Presidential ultra vires/unconstitutional acts are not shielded by sovereign immunity | Government immune absent a statutory waiver | Court: Larson exception applies; suit permitted because claim alleges President acted beyond statutory/constitutional authority |
| Private right of action | Plaintiffs sue to vindicate that President exceeded authority, not to enforce OCSLA against third parties; no express congressional cause of action required for ultra vires/constitutional claims | Private causes of action must be created by Congress; plaintiffs point to Sandoval | Court: Plaintiffs may proceed; review of Presidential statutory/constitutional excess is justiciable without a statutory private right of action |
| Declaratory relief against President | Seek declaration that President exceeded authority; injunctive relief sought against subordinate officials for redress | Courts may not award declaratory/injunctive relief directly against the President | Court: Dismissal on that basis unwarranted; plaintiffs principally seek relief against subordinate officials and a declaration is permissible for redressability purposes |
| Article III standing (imminence, geographic specificity, particularization) | Executive Order plus industry interest and pending permit applications create a substantial, imminent risk of harm to plaintiffs’ members in defined Arctic/Atlantic areas | Alleged future harms are speculative, non-particularized across large area; sequential permitting steps make harm uncertain | Court: Plaintiffs adequately pleaded imminent, geographically specific, and particularized injury for standing at motion-to-dismiss stage |
| OCSLA jurisdiction (API) | Plaintiffs challenge Presidential action under §1341, not agency leasing decisions under §1344; suit is not a disguised challenge requiring D.C. Circuit review | §1349(c)(1) vests exclusive review of leasing-program approvals in D.C. Circuit; overlapping review should be channeled there | Court: Plaintiffs’ claim targets the President’s withdrawal reversal, not a §1344 leasing decision; district court jurisdiction proper for these claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (Larson exception to sovereign immunity for ultra vires or unconstitutional official acts)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (private rights of action must be created by Congress)
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (Presidential actions may be judicially reviewed; remedies against subordinates can redress injury)
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (Presidential action beyond constitutional power unlawful)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (standards for imminent injury; multi-step speculative chain defeats standing)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (injury-in-fact must be concrete, particularized, and imminent)
- In re Zappos.com, Inc., 884 F.3d 893 (Ninth Circuit on imminent risk standing where data breach posed credible threat of harm)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, 588 F.3d 701 (geographic specificity and particularized injury sufficient for environmental plaintiffs)
- California Save Our Streams Council, Inc. v. Yeutter, 887 F.2d 908 (district court restraint where claim effectively challenged agency licensing subject to exclusive appellate review)
- Cal. Energy Comm'n v. Dep't of Energy, 585 F.3d 1143 (interrelated agency actions may affect jurisdictional assignment but do not preclude district court review where claim is distinct)