That’s the first time I’ve seen this case described that way, although I wouldn’t be surprised to see this explanation on DU or some other such site.
This was a question about a 2009 law that extended the lease for ten years. The Executive Branch decided the law gave them the “option” to extend it for 10 years or to just ignore the law passed by Congress. Why Congress would pass a law that said the Secretary of the Interior had the same authority he had before the law was passed is beyond me. Unless, of course, they meant the law to extend the lease, in which case the Department of Interior went beyond its authority.
This was not a simple “they just decided not to extend the lease” issue. This was a “what’s a ‘Congress?’” kind of thing from the Executive Branch.
Here is a much better explanation of what was at stake.
It was a lease, not a permit. The permit allowed them to farm oysters on the land being leased. The lease expired and the Feds didn’t want to renew. Happens all the time between in business dealings with or not with the government.
So yea, 8 or so months ago I was fully read up on this issue and posted responses to many misconceptions about the case — Including an op-ed from their Lawyer represented as news. Go look em up cause I’m done with this case. It started out fail and ended fail.
He’;s either a bad businessman for buying a business on leased land set to expire or he knew and was gambling on getting it for cheap and then getting a favorable lease renewal.