107 F.4th 1012
D.C. Cir.2024Background
- Golden Pass LNG Terminal, LLC was authorized to export up to 937 billion cubic feet per year of liquified natural gas (LNG) from Jefferson County, Texas, with 129 billion cubic feet previously restricted to export only to free-trade agreement (FTA) countries.
- In 2022, the Department of Energy (DOE) removed the FTA-only restriction, allowing full export volumes to both FTA and non-FTA countries.
- The Sierra Club challenged this order, claiming increased flexibility would lead to higher actual export volumes, increased tanker traffic, and thus aesthetic and recreational harm to a nearby member.
- The asserted harm depended on a causal chain: DOE’s order would increase export volumes, which would increase shipping traffic, causing injury.
- The case was reviewed by the D.C. Circuit on whether the Sierra Club had Article III standing, focusing on the adequacy of evidence and argument provided in the opening brief.
- The court decided the case on standing grounds, dismissing Sierra Club’s petition without resolving underlying statutory jurisdiction issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal of FTA-only restriction increases exports | Increased export flexibility will increase export volume, leading to harm to member | No showing that removal will necessarily increase export volumes | Dismissed: Plaintiff failed to show increased exports were substantially likely |
| Sufficiency of standing argument in opening brief | Opening brief analysis adequate; reply brief supplements case | Argument first made in reply brief, not allowed | Dismissed: New standing arguments cannot be raised for first time in reply |
| Self-evidence from administrative record | DOE assessments assumed increased exports under new terms | DOE did not find removal would increase total exports | Dismissed: No self-evidence in record of export increase |
| Economic principle of supply and demand | More potential customers means more likely exports | General principle requires specific evidence | Dismissed: No case-specific evidence supporting economic claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (associational standing requires member with individual standing)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (elements of injury in fact, traceability, and redressability for standing)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (party invoking jurisdiction bears burden of establishing standing)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (substantial risk of future injury sufficient for standing)