92 F.4th 1124
D.C. Cir.2024Background
- Nopetro LNG, LLC sought to construct an LNG facility in Port St. Joe, Florida, and petitioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a determination that the facility was outside FERC’s jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act.
- FERC agreed with Nopetro and issued a declaratory order, sustaining its decision on rehearing after Public Citizen challenged it.
- Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group representing members in the Port St. Joe community, petitioned for judicial review, alleging harm if the facility were built.
- Before oral argument, Nopetro abandoned the project due to market conditions and confirmed no current intent to pursue it in the future, although they noted plans could change.
- The court considered whether the case should be dismissed as moot because there was no longer an active controversy after Nopetro’s withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of the Appeal | Public Citizen argued the appeal wasn't moot as Nopetro could restart the project and the order could impact others. | Nopetro opposed mootness, stating it had no plans to pursue the project, while FERC took no firm position. | Court held the case was moot under the ordinary test; no ongoing controversy remained. |
| Application of Voluntary-Cessation Doctrine | Argued that the more demanding voluntary-cessation standard should apply, keeping the case alive. | Nopetro argued against application since it did not intend to manipulate jurisdiction. | Court declined to apply the doctrine since there was no evidence of manipulation. |
| Effect on Future Challenges | Concerned dismissal would prevent later challenge if Nopetro revived the project. | Nopetro noted any future project would be speculative. | Court held the risk was too speculative to preserve jurisdiction. |
| Advisory Opinion Concerns | Sought ruling on FERC's interpretation to affect future projects. | Both parties wanted a resolution for hypothetical future cases. | Court declined, stating federal courts can't issue advisory opinions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (actual controversy requirement for Article III jurisdiction)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (voluntary cessation doctrine in mootness analysis)
- Clarke v. United States, 915 F.2d 699 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (standard for mootness inquiry in ongoing disputes)
- City News & Novelty, Inc. v. City of Waukesha, 531 U.S. 278 (declining voluntary cessation standard where there is no manipulation of jurisdiction)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (risks of evading judicial review through voluntary cessation)