Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc. v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21442
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Shell sought and obtained approval from the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement for two oil spill response plans under the Oil Pollution Act for the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.
- Weeks after approval, Shell filed a Declaratory Judgment Act lawsuit against environmental organizations challenging the Bureau’s APA compliance.
- Shell argued it needed a swift determination to proceed with exploratory drilling without fear of later challenges by environmental groups.
- Environmental groups had opposed Shell’s Arctic activities and threatened future litigation challenging the Bureau’s approval.
- The district court denied the motion to dismiss; later, some groups filed related litigation consolidated with Alaska Wilderness League v. Jewell.
- The panel held that Shell lacked adverse legal interests under the APA and that a declaratory judgment action could not proceed against the Bureau absent an adverse party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shell has adverse legal interests to satisfy Article III. | Shell argues it has adverse interests against the Bureau under the APA due to potential challenges by environmental groups. | The Bureau and environmental groups hold the adverse legal interests; Shell is not an aggrieved party under the APA. | No; Shell lacks adverse legal interests; lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Md. Cas. Co. v. Pac. Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270 (1941) (declaratory judgments require a justiciable case or controversy)
- Collin County v. HAVEN, 915 F.2d 167 (5th Cir. 1990) (practical interest not enough without adverse legal rights)
- City of Rohnert Park v. Harris, 601 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir. 1979) (APA suits against agencies; aggrieved party concept)
- Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667 (1950) (declaratory judgments require controversy with adverse interests)
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013) (mere disagreement does not satisfy Article III)
- Seattle Audubon Soc. v. Mosely, 80 F.3d 1401 (9th Cir. 1996) (Declaratory Judgment Act does not create jurisdiction absent adverseness)
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (agency perspectives and potential participation affect judgments)
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (1937) (cases must present a justiciable controversy)