The lawsuit, filed July 8 in the District of Alaska, argues that Trump’s order exceeds presidential authority under Section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which allows presidents to withdraw federal offshore lands from leasing—but not to reverse prior withdrawals. Environmental advocates say the order would expose fragile ecosystems and frontline communities to seismic surveys, spills, and other risks.
This action is not just unlawful—it’s dangerous, wrote Erik Grafe, an attorney with Earthjustice in a court filing. These waters support subsistence lifestyles, irreplaceable biodiversity, and a sustainable ocean economy. The law doesn’t allow any president to singlehandedly undo those protections.
The case reprises a legal battle from Trump’s first term, when his 2017 attempt to revoke President Obama’s offshore withdrawals was ruled illegal by the same court in League of Conservation Voters v. Trump. That case was later mooted when President Biden reinstated the protections in early 2021.
The latest lawsuit claims Trump’s January 20, 2025, executive order—issued on his first day back in office—violates both the U.S. Constitution’s Property Clause and the clear language of OCSLA. Plaintiffs include the Sierra Club, Oceana, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Alaska-based organizations such as the Northern Alaska Environmental Center.
President Biden had used Section 12(a) to withdraw key regions of the OCS from leasing, citing the environmental, cultural, and economic value of coastal ecosystems. These included the Beaufort Sea in Alaska, the Northern Bering Sea, deep-sea canyons in the Atlantic, and habitat for critically endangered species like the Rice’s whale in the Gulf of Mexico.
Shortly after Trump’s order, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum issued three directives:
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management followed with an April 2025 Federal Register notice announcing a new five-year leasing program and reopening all 27 planning areas—including those previously withdrawn—for analysis.
The complaint highlights imminent risks, especially from seismic surveying, which often precedes leasing by several years. Plaintiffs point to past harm from spills like Deepwater Horizon, as well as disruptions to whales, fish, and coastal economies from industrial noise and activity.
Plaintiffs argue that the lack of statutory or constitutional authority for reversing a withdrawal makes this case ripe for resolution, even before lease sales occur.
This legal challenge could set a critical precedent on the limits of presidential power over public lands—especially as oil exploration resurges under the “energy dominance” policy revived in Trump’s second term.
