Hornbeck Offshore Services v. Salazar is an ongoing case in United States federal court. In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the subsequent oil spill, the U.S. Department of the Interior issued a six-month moratorium on exploratory drilling in deep water. Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the moratorium.
Beginning June 8, 2010, Judge Martin Feldman of the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Louisiana began ruling on motions in the case. Prior to June 22, Judge Feldman issued several orders to expedite the case (i.e. moving a hearing date from July 28 to June 21 and denying the government's request for a continuance). On June 22, 2010, Feldman granted a preliminary injunction lifting the moratorium.
he White House appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which granted the request for an expedited hearing. On July 8, 2010, a three judge panel, W. Eugene Davis, Jerry E. Smith and James L. Dennis, denied the government's emergency request to stay the lower court's decision pending appeal. The Obama administration is preparing a revised moratorium. The three-judge panel will hear arguments on the merits of the case the week of August 30
Despite the ruling of the three-judge panel, a de facto moratorium arguably remained in place because the government had told oil companies that they must seek revised permits and the approval of a government agency to continue deepwater drilling. One of the requirements was that a CEO of a company seeking to drill must personally sign a statement certifying that all safety equipment works properly and all well designs are safe, and acknowledge personal criminal liability for any false statements.
While Hornbeck may have been right that Salazar violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in barring deepwater oil drilling for six months, all of its efforts were for naught, undercut by an injunction tailored to a too-specific situation, rather than a specific result. When a court enjoins an agency from taking a specific action, that injunction is narrowly construed and does not preclude the agency taking action not encompassed within the injunction.
Lesson: Injunctions, whether preliminary or final, against an agency of the United States are very specific, narrowly drawn, and narrowly construed. In this instance, the injunction barred only limited actions, and DOI acted to reinforce its position outside the strictures of the injunction.
No aspect of Deepwater Horizon or the administrative process that followed can be considered an exemplary lesson – whether oil drilling or administrative law and litigation. Hornbeck exemplifies the need for great care in constructing injunctions against the United States and its agencies.
Yes, he can. I think that was his campaign slogan. He meant it
If he is ignoring it, why is the administration appealing the ruling?
Yes, it is. Refusal is always an option, especially for Obama.
Not if it is a court order. Even the Dems won't support a President who disobeys a court order.
The Administration ignored Judge Feldman's injunction against the drilling moratorium and continued to deny drilling permits. Judge Feldman found the Admin to be in civil contempt and order them to pay the plaintiff's fees. The Admin appealed the contempt ruling and the 5th Circuit reversed Judge Feldman's contempt order. The Obama Admin ignored the injunction until the moratorium expired.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules
Not if it is a court order.
Refusal is always an option. There may be criminal or financial penalties for doing so, but refusal is an option.
Even the Dems won't support a President who disobeys a court order.
You're joking, right? The Dems have repeatedly encouraged Obama to ignore the courts and use his Executive Power to circumvent rulings.