## Facts

- President Obama used § 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. § 1341(a), to withdraw certain Arctic and Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf areas from oil and gas leasing.
- In April 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13,795, which purported to modify or revoke those prior withdrawals and reopen the areas to potential leasing and exploration.
- Environmental organizations alleged the order would prompt near-term industrial activity (including seismic surveying) that could harm marine mammals, fish, and sensitive ecosystems, and increase the risk of oil spills.
- Plaintiffs alleged their members used the affected regions for recreational, aesthetic, scientific, and spiritual purposes and would suffer diminished enjoyment and environmental harm if protections were removed.
- Plaintiffs claimed the Executive Order was ultra vires because OCSLA § 12(a) authorizes withdrawals but does not authorize a later President to revoke a prior withdrawal.
- Defendants (federal officials and agencies, including the President in his official capacity) and intervenors (American Petroleum Institute and the State of Alaska) moved to dismiss on sovereign immunity, lack of a cause of action, lack of standing, and improper venue/jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether sovereign immunity barred suit where plaintiffs alleged the President and federal officials acted ultra vires under OCSLA and the Constitution.
2. Whether plaintiffs sufficiently alleged Article III standing (injury in fact, causation, and redressability) based on increased risk of environmental harm and impaired use of specific areas.
3. Whether OCSLA’s specialized review provisions required the challenge to be brought elsewhere (including the D.C. Circuit), rather than in the District of Alaska.

## Decision

- The court denied the motions to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed.
- The court held sovereign immunity did not bar claims alleging that the President and officials acted beyond statutory and constitutional authority.
- The court held plaintiffs adequately pleaded standing because removal of withdrawals plausibly created a substantial risk of imminent harm to concrete recreational and aesthetic interests in particular places.
- The court held causation and redressability were adequately alleged because the Executive Order removed protections and invalidation would restore the prior withdrawals and reduce the risk of harm.
- The court held the case was properly in district court because plaintiffs challenged a presidential action under § 12(a), not a specific lease sale or five-year leasing program subject to exclusive special-review procedures.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts may entertain equitable ultra vires claims seeking to restrain official action alleged to exceed delegated statutory or constitutional authority; such claims are not necessarily barred by sovereign immunity.
- At the pleading stage, plaintiffs may establish injury in fact by alleging a substantial risk of imminent environmental harm that concretely affects their use and enjoyment of identified areas.
- Traceability and redressability can be satisfied where the challenged action removes legal protections and judicial relief would reinstate those protections and materially reduce the risk of harm.
- OCSLA’s specialized judicial-review provisions do not necessarily displace district court jurisdiction when the challenge targets presidential action under § 12(a) rather than a discrete leasing decision or leasing program.

## Conclusion

The court permitted environmental organizations to proceed with an ultra vires challenge to an executive order reopening previously withdrawn offshore areas, holding the suit was not barred by sovereign immunity, plaintiffs plausibly alleged Article III standing, and the challenge was properly brought in district court rather than confined to OCSLA’s special-review scheme.


League of Conservation Voters v. Trump, 303 F. Supp. 3d 985 (D. Alaska 2018)