UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _______________________________________ ) GULF RESTORATION NETWORK, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) DAVID BERNHARDT, in his official capacity ) as Secretary of the United States Department ) 1 of the Interior, et al., ) ) Civil Action No. 18-1674 (RBW) Defendants, ) ) and ) ) AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, ) et al., ) ) Intervenor-Defendants. ) _______________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINION The plaintiffs, Gulf Restoration Network, Sierra Club, and the Center for Biological Diversity (collectively, the “plaintiffs”), filed this civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the United States Department of the Interior (the “Department”); David Bernhardt, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Interior (the “Secretary”); Casey Hammond, in his official capacity as the Acting Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals Management; and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”) (collectively, the “federal defendants”), “challeng[ing] the [allegedly] unlawful decisions by [the federal defendants] . . . to hold Offshore Lease Sale[] 250 [(‘Lease Sale 250’)] and [Offshore Lease Sale] 251 [(‘Lease Sale 251’)] in the Gulf of Mexico in reliance on arbitrary environmental analyses” pursuant to the National 1 Casey Hammond is substituted for Joseph R. Ballash as the proper party defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321–4370m-12 (2018), and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706 (2018). Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Compl.” or the “Complaint”) ¶ 1. The American Petroleum Institute (“API”) and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (“Chevron”) (collectively, the “intervenor- defendants”) join the federal defendants in defending this action. Currently pending before the Court are (1) the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Request for a Hearing (“Pls.’ Mot.”), (2) the Federal Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“Fed. Defs.’ Mot.”), (3) the American Petroleum Institute’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (“API’s Mot.”), and (4) Chevron U.S.A. Inc.’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (“Chevron’s Mot.”). Upon careful consideration of the parties’ submissions,2 the Court concludes for the following reasons that it must deny the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and grant the federal defendants’ and the intervenor- defendants’ (collectively, the “defendants”) cross-motions for summary judgment. 2 In addition to the filings already identified, the Court considered the following submissions in rendering its decision: (1) the Motion of the American Petroleum Institute for Leave to Intervene as a Defendant (“API’s Mot. to Intervene”); (2) the Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint (“Fed. Defs.’ Answer”); (3) Chevron U.S.A. Inc.’s Motion to Intervene in Support of Defendants (“Chevron’s Mot. to Intervene”); (4) the [Proposed] Answer, Defenses, and Affirmatives Defenses of Defendant-Intervenor American Petroleum Institute (“API’s Answer”); (5) Chevron U.S.A. Inc.’s Proposed Answer, Defenses, and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Chevron’s Answer”); (6) the Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pls.’ Mem.”); (7) the Memorandum of the American Petroleum Institute in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and in Support of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals