|
Court rejects motions to dismiss OCS case
Parties have two weeks to prepare briefing schedule in case challenging Trump’s order opening Chukchi and Beaufort seas for leasing
Alan Bailey Petroleum News
A judge in the federal District Court in Alaska has rejected motions to dismiss a court case challenging President Trump’s order canceling President Obama’s withdrawal of large areas of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas from oil and gas leasing. In October the state of Alaska and the American Petroleum Institute, supported by the federal administration defendants, had filed motions to dismiss the case, with the court subsequently hearing oral arguments in November. On March 19 Judge Sharon Gleason issued an order, rejecting the dismissal motions and setting an expedited schedule for having the parties in the case file a proposed schedule for briefings for a summary judgment.
Trump canceled Obama’s order last April, thus opening the way for the possibility of federal outer continental lease sales encompassing areas beyond the nearshore region of the Beaufort Sea that the Obama order did not withdraw. A group of environmental organizations subsequently filed suit in the District Court, challenging the legality of Trump’s order.
No one disputes the legal basis for Obama’s order. The withdrawal was carried out under the terms of section 1341(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. This section of the act states that “the president of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer continental shelf.” Unfortunately, however, the act makes no statement regarding under what circumstances, if any, a land withdrawal of this type may be reversed.
Plaintiffs in the case argue that Trump did not have the legal authority to reverse the land withdrawals and that his order was unconstitutional under the separation of powers between the president and Congress.
Legal authority Motions to dismiss the case revolved around whether there is a sufficient legal issue and a sufficiently credible complaint to warrant an appeal against Trump’s order, and over whether the District Court has jurisdiction to deal with the case. The federal administration also argued that the plaintiffs do not have the legal right to pursue the case and that, under the separation of powers, the president is immune from this type of legal challenge. The administration also argued that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated an immediate harm that would result from Trump’s order.
Judge Gleason, citing various legal precedents and the circumstances surrounding the case, rejected the arguments for case dismissal. Gleason now requires that a schedule for briefings for a summary judgment in the case be shortened to 14 days from the 45-day schedule previously agreed by the parties involved.
“The court is not persuaded that 45 days is necessary for the task,” Gleason wrote.
| 