5th Circuit-Federal Land Drilling Ruling
5th Circuit-Federal Land Drilling Ruling
2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK 00516503143
Document Page: 1 Page
224 Filed 10/11/22 Date1Filed:
of 1110/11/2022
PageID #: 7771
Plaintiffs—Appellees,
versus
Defendants—Appellants.
____________________________
JUDGMENT
This cause was considered on the record on appeal and was argued by
counsel.
IT IS ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the
District Court is VACATED and REMANDED to the District Court for
further proceedings in accordance with the opinion of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each party bear its own costs
on appeal.
2
Case Case: 21-30505 Document:
2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK 00516503144
Document Page: 1 Page
224 Filed 10/11/22 Date3Filed:
of 1110/11/2022
PageID #: 7773
FILED
August 17, 2022
No. 21-30505 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiffs—Appellees,
versus
Defendants—Appellants.
1
Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, 86 Fed. Reg. 7619, 7624–25
(Jan. 27, 2021).
2
Case Case: 21-30505 Document:
2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK 00516503144
Document Page: 3 Page
224 Filed 10/11/22 Date5Filed:
of 1110/11/2022
PageID #: 7775
No. 21-30505
2
Id. (emphasis added).
3
Fact Sheet: President Biden to Take Action to Uphold Commitment to Restore
Balance on Public Lands and Waters, Invest in Clean Energy Future, Bureau of Land
Management (Jan. 27, 2021), https://www.blm.gov/press-release/fact-sheet-president-
biden-take-action-uphold-commitment-restore-balance-public-lands (last visited August 3,
2022).
4
86 Fed. Reg. 10132 (Feb. 18, 2021).
5
85 Fed. Reg. 55859 (Sept. 10, 2020).
3
Case Case: 21-30505 Document:
2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK 00516503144
Document Page: 4 Page
224 Filed 10/11/22 Date6Filed:
of 1110/11/2022
PageID #: 7776
No. 21-30505
the Executive Order, ostensibly to avoid administrative costs while the sale
was under review. 6
On March 24, 2021, thirteen states 7 (the “States”) filed a complaint
seeking injunctive relief and alleging that the Department of Interior violated
the Administrative Procedure Act by actions that were contrary to law,
arbitrary and capricious, and for failing to go through notice and comment
when implementing lease sale postponements or cancellations. 8 On March
31, 2021, the States moved for a preliminary injunction, which the district
court granted on June 15, 2021. The Government timely appealed.
II.
As a threshold issue, we address whether the Government waived its
argument that the injunction failed to meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Rule 65(d). 9 The Government’s opening brief argued that the injunction
must be reversed because the injunction is tantamount to enjoining an
6
86 Fed. Reg. 10994 (Feb. 23, 2021).
7
The states are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.
8
The States characterize the lease actions as “cancellations,” while the
Government characterize them as “postponements.” The complaint included four
additional counts that did not seek injunctive relief: two counts under the APA for unlawful
withholding or unreasonable delay of lease sales, a Citizen Suit under the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”), and an ultra vires claim which alleged that President Biden
exceeded his authority under the Mineral Leasing Act and OCSLA.
9
The Rule requires:
Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order must:
(A) state the reasons why it issued;
(B) state its terms specifically; and
(C) describe in reasonable detail--and not by referring to the complaint or other
document--the act or acts restrained or required.
4
Case Case: 21-30505 Document:
2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK 00516503144
Document Page: 5 Page
224 Filed 10/11/22 Date7Filed:
of 1110/11/2022
PageID #: 7777
No. 21-30505
10
United States v. Ramirez, 557 F.3d 200, 203 (5th Cir. 2009).
11
Id.
12
Id.
13
Id.
14
Texans for Free Enter. v. Tex. Ethics Comm’n, 732 F.3d 535, 537 (5th Cir. 2013).
5
Case Case: 21-30505 Document:
2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK 00516503144
Document Page: 6 Page
224 Filed 10/11/22 Date8Filed:
of 1110/11/2022
PageID #: 7778
No. 21-30505
The order enjoins implementation of the “Pause” but does not define
that term. The district court’s accompanying memorandum defines the
Pause without precision, leading the parties to differ in their interpretation of
the Pause’s breadth. The Government argues that the Pause refers to and
enjoins the Executive Order itself and the States argue that the Pause refers
to an unwritten policy. The district court’s memorandum opens:
The issue before this Court is whether the Plaintiff States are
entitled to a preliminary injunction against the Government
Defendants as a result of the implementation of a “pause” of
new oil and natural gas leases on public lands or in offshore
waters (“Pause”) after Executive Order 14008 was signed by
15
Scott v. Schedler, 826 F.3d 207, 211 (5th Cir. 2016).
16
The district court defined “Agency Defendants” as all defendants other than
President Biden.
6
Case Case: 21-30505 Document:
2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK 00516503144
Document Page: 7 Page
224 Filed 10/11/22 Date9Filed:
of 1110/11/2022
PageID #: 7779
No. 21-30505
17
Daniels Health Scis., L.L.C. v. Vascular Health Scis., L.L.C., 710 F.3d 579, 586
(5th Cir. 2013) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 65(d)).
18
U. S. Steel Corp. v. United Mine Workers of Am., 519 F.2d 1236, 1246 n.20 (5th
Cir. 1975) (quoting WRIGHT & MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 2955 at 536–
37 (1973)).
19
Id. at 1246.
20
Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473, 476 (1974).
7
Case: 21-30505 Document:
Case 2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK 00516503144
Document Page: 8 Page
224 Filed 10/11/22 Date10
Filed:
of 1110/11/2022
PageID #: 7780
No. 21-30505
and confusion on the part of those faced with injunctive orders, and to avoid
the possible founding of a contempt citation on a decree too vague to be
understood.” 21
The present injunction fails to meet Rule 65(d) requirements. We
cannot reach the merits of the Government’s challenge when we cannot
ascertain from the record what conduct—an unwritten agency policy, a
written policy outside of the Executive Order, or the Executive Order itself—
is enjoined. Our review of APA claims must begin by determining if there was
final agency action. 22 Where, as here, it is unclear what final agency action
the district court predicated its order upon, we are unable to reach the merits
of the appeal.
V.
The order below does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 65(d).
Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND
the case to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
21
Id.
22
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177–78 (1997).
8
Case: 21-30505 Document:
Case 2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK 00516503152
Document Page: 1 Page
224 Filed 10/11/22 Date11
Filed:
of 1110/11/2022
PageID #: 7781
Sincerely,
LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk
By: _________________________
Connie Brown, Deputy Clerk
504-310-7671
cc:
Mr. Andrew Marshall Bernie
Ms. Victoria Elizabeth Emmerling
Mr. John S. Guttmann III
Mr. Kenneth Hugh Laborde
Mr. Joshua Paul Morrow
Ms. Elizabeth Baker Murrill
Mr. Michael Benjamin Schon
Mr. Daniel Shapiro
Mr. Joseph Scott St. John