Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc.
709 F.3d 1281
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Shell holds multi-year Arctic OCS leases; Greenpeace campaigns to stop Shell drilling in the Arctic.
- District court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Greenpeace USA from approaching Shell vessels and from certain acts against them; injunction expired after the 2012 season.
- Greenpeace USA challenged justiciability, subject-matter jurisdiction, and the district court’s application of Winter standards.
- Court's governing analysis focused on standing, ripeness, mootness, and jurisdiction under OCSLA and admiralty provisions.
- The panel affirmed the injunction, finding the action justiciable, with jurisdiction to issue the order, and no abuse of discretion in granting the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Greenpeace USA’s challenge is justiciable | Shell contends standing/ripe; Greenpeace USA silent on injury | Shell argues real and immediate injury and irreparable harm justify injunctive relief | Yes; justiciable and Shell has standing for injunctive relief |
| Whether the dispute is ripe or moot | Moot because injunction expired; no ongoing injury | Injury capable of repetition, evading review; still pending | Not moot; falls within capable-of-repetition, evading-review exception |
| Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over EEZ transit vessels | Questionable admiralty jurisdiction for EEZ transit | Supplemental jurisdiction via 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over the case's core controversy | Yes; district court had jurisdiction through supplemental jurisdiction |
| Whether Shell proved likelihood of success on the merits | Shell must show Greenpeace USA would likely commit illegal acts | Greenpeace USA challenges evidentiary weight and burden of proof | Yes; Shell showed a likelihood Greenpeace USA would commit tortious/illegal acts absent relief |
| Whether the balance of equities and public interest favor a narrowly tailored injunction | Irreparable harm from interference; public interest in monitoring environmental activity | Speech rights and environmental monitoring compatible with narrowly tailored injunction | Yes; balance and public interest favor injunction with narrow tailoring |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions; likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, public interest)
- Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1967) (ripeness and administrative-urgency considerations in injunctions)
- Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 697 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2012) (mootness and ripeness; sua sponte mootness considerations)
- Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (two-part test for abuse of discretion; deference to district court on factual findings)
- Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1982) (liability requires direct participation or authorization; cannot impute acts of others to party without control)