Court challenge takes first crack at US move to ignite offshore oil & gas drilling boom

With the first legal stone cast at the reversal of ocean protections, the Trump administration is facing its initial environmental challenge from groups concerned about the threats stemming from steps taken to spur offshore drilling zest for a new era of oil and gas rush.

As the final countdown of his term in the White House began, former President Joe Biden put measures in place to permanently remove from the list of acreage available for offshore drilling the entire eastern U.S. Atlantic coast, or approximately 269 million acres of the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf from Canada to the southern tip of Florida; 65 million acres of the eastern Gulf of Mexico/America; nearly 250 million acres of federal waters off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California; and 44 million acres in the Northern Bering Sea climate resilience area in Alaska.

Steve Mashuda, Earthjustice Managing Attorney for Oceans, said: “We defeated Trump the first time he tried to roll back protections and sacrifice more of our waters to the oil industry. We’re bringing this abuse of the law to the courts again. Trump is illegally trying to take away protections vital to coastal communities that rely on clean, healthy oceans for safe living conditions, thriving economies, and stable ecosystems.”

The decision followed Biden’s previous move to protect 2.8 million acres of the Beaufort Sea and reinstated protections of 125 million acres in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas as well as 3.8 million acres of canyon areas in the north and mid-Atlantic that Trump attempted to undo during his first term.

The opposition to the expansion of offshore drilling came from hundreds of organizations and lawmakers, including Republicans and Democrats, who expressed concerns about expanded oil and gas drilling off their coastlines. The withdrawals were interpreted to leave most of the Gulf of Mexico/Gulf of America on the table for oil leasing, where nearly all U.S. offshore drilling occurs.

A lawsuit, challenging the Trump administration’s order to undo ocean protections from offshore drilling, has been filed against the second Trump administration, as President Biden protected areas off the Eastern Gulf, Atlantic, Pacific, and Alaska coasts by invoking his authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which authorizes the president to withdraw offshore areas from oil and gas leasing, as eight administrations, including the first Trump administration, have routinely done.

Martha Collins, Executive Director of Healthy Gulf, noted: “Protecting the eastern Gulf has long been a bipartisan effort in Florida. President Trump used the same authority as President Biden to protect the eastern Gulf and Florida coastline from offshore oil and gas. President Biden simply made those protections permanent, something President Trump did not do. President Trump has now shown he could care less about protecting the eastern Gulf or Florida.

“Unfortunately, we have to file suit to stand up against the rash and inconsistent policies of the Trump administration to enforce what both Florida Republicans and Democrats have fought for years on. Permanent protections from offshore oil and gas in Florida.”

However, the environmental groups argue that the law does not authorize the president to revoke the withdrawals of prior presidents, which a federal court confirmed when Trump attempted to undo Obama-era protections for the Arctic Ocean and portions of the Atlantic oceans during his first term.

While one group is challenging Trump’s order to revoke former President Biden’s withdrawal of areas of the ocean, deemed as vulnerable, from future oil and gas leasing, another set of groups is taking a related action asking a court to reinstate a federal court ruling that invalidated an attempt by the first Trump administration to undo Obama-era offshore protections.

Kristen Monsell, Oceans Legal Director at the Center for Biological Diversity, stated: “Trump’s putting our oceans, marine wildlife and coastal communities at risk of devastating oil spills and we need the courts to rein in his utter contempt for the law.

“Offshore oil drilling is destructive from start to finish. Opening up more public waters to the oil industry for short-term gain and political points is a reprehensible and irresponsible way to manage our precious ocean ecosystems.”

This content is available after accepting the cookies.

Change cookie-settings View on Offshore-energy.

While plaintiffs, Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), are each representing themselves in the first case, the plaintiffs in the related litigation to reinstate protections for the Arctic and parts of the Atlantic encompass League of Conservation Voters, Defenders of Wildlife, NRDC, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Greenpeace, and Alaska Wilderness League, which are represented by Earthjustice and NRDC.

Joseph Gordon, Oceana Campaign Director, emphasized: “President Trump’s executive order would roll back millions of acres of ocean protection, jeopardizing our coastal economies and the people who rely on healthy, thriving oceans. Leaders in both political parties, thousands of businesses and millions of Americans support permanently protecting our coasts from offshore drilling. We are confident the court will continue to uphold the bipartisan tradition of presidents safeguarding these coastlines and protecting the people who live and work among them.”

This content is available after accepting the cookies.

Change cookie-settings View on Offshore-energy.

The conservation groups argue that President Trump has attempted to open nearly the entire Arctic Ocean to drilling by reviving his first-term order under the guise that such protections would disturb U.S. energy security. Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law organization, highlighted: “Opening up these areas to future offshore drilling poses significant threats to nearly every coastal community in the U.S., and the health and economic resilience of millions of people who rely on clean and healthy oceans for everything from tourism to commercial fishing.”

Christy Goldfuss, Executive director at NRDC, stressed: “Trump’s executive order is an unlawful giveaway to the fossil fuel industry that puts marine ecosystems, coastal economies, and the climate at risk. The law is clear: once a president permanently withdraws ocean areas from oil and gas leasing, those protections cannot simply be undone. With the Trump administration aggressively dismantling environmental safeguards, the courts will be a crucial backstop. When Trump puts polluters over the law, we’ll see him in court.”

In the meantime, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is rescinding its notice to lessees and operators (NTL) 2023-G01, regarding expanded Rice’s whale protection efforts in response to Secretary’s Order 3418, Unleashing American Energy, during reinitiated consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The NTL contained recommendations for suggested precautionary measures by lessees and operators during the reinitiated consultation. 

This content is available after accepting the cookies.

Change cookie-settings View on Offshore-energy.

Earthjustice elaborated: “We’re suing to restore protections to millions of acres of irreplaceable public waters that President Trump is attempting to illegally open to offshore drilling. Every other president this century has protected these coastlines, but on his first day in office President Trump signed an executive order dismantling those protections.

“Nearly 40% of Americans live near a coastline where their health and economic stability are tied to waters that could be exposed to oil and gas development. This is an illegal move that puts Americans in danger. We stopped a similar attempt during Trump’s first administration, and we’re prepared to do it again.”

This is not the only lawsuit against the Trump administration over the past month as many were launched over various moves, such as the massive job cuts. The Washington Post recently reported that Trump’s “honeymoon” appears to be over based on the polls’ results, as his popularity rating has experienced a drop. While around 7,000 people are anticipated to lose their jobs, a judge recently rejected a request from unions to pause the firing of workers across agencies.

While speaking to Politico‘s Megan Messerly and Adam Cancryn about the new U.S. administration and the future of principled conservatism at the grassroots level, Heath Mayo, President & Founder of Principles First advocacy group, pointed out: “The party had the choice of which direction it wanted to pick and I think it pretty well spoke.

“The Nikki Haleys of the world, the Mike Pences, the folks who have remained dedicated to conservative principles as opposed to just the personality fest have been pushed aside and the party has really said what it wants to be, which is an isolationist, personality driven party.”

This content is available after accepting the cookies.

Change cookie-settings View on Twitter.

Sierra Club underlined: “Trump’s attacks on our environment are reaching new heights. In just the last few days he’s gutted the National Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, and Clean Water Act, putting precious ecosystems and wildlife, our air and water, and our very future on this planet at risk. As the onslaught continues, it’s more important than ever to concentrate our grassroots power to protect our climate, our democracy, and our future.

“This month, we’ll continue to focus on urging our federal representatives to protect the Inflation Reduction Act – the landmark climate and clean energy law that’s under attack by Trump and his friends in Congress. We’re focusing on this critical issue because we have a real shot at protecting many of these policies from being repealed or rolled back. These programs are extremely popular in both blue, red and purple states, and many Republican members of Congress have already signaled their support. We can win this!”

Meanwhile, North Dakota is poised to turn into a battleground, as Energy Transfer, the Big Oil corporation behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, is seeking $300 million in damages from Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace International, accusing these organizations of playing a central role in organizing the Indigenous-led resistance to the pipeline back in 2016. The environmental groups describe this lawsuit as one of the largest strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) cases ever filed, and one of the biggest cases to go to court in North Dakota.

Sushma Raman, Greenpeace USA Interim Executive Director, outlined: “This case is a prime example of corporations abusing the legal system to silence critics and keep their operations secret. It is also a critical test of the future of the First Amendment – both freedom of speech and peaceful protest – under the Trump Administration and beyond. But we are fighting back, and we are not fighting back alone.”

The date for the trial has been set as February 24, 2025. Energy Transfer’s claims against the Greenpeace entities fall into three broad categories: defamation, tortious interference, and on-the-ground claims, with the first type alleging that Greenpeace entities made false statements, which caused damages to the company. On February 11th, 2025, Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the EU’s new anti-SLAPP Directive by filing a lawsuit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands.

Kristin Casper, Greenpeace International General Counsel, outlined: “Energy Transfer is attempting to hold Greenpeace International, a Dutch-based nonprofit foundation accountable for hundreds of millions of dollars of alleged damages for signing on to a letter with over 500 organisations from more than 50 countries. It is this, along with many more reasons, we believe Energy Transfer’s pending US$300 million suit is a contender for the award of the most blatant SLAPP anywhere in the world.”

Big Oil companies such as Shell, TotalEnergies, and Eni have also filed SLAPPs against Greenpeace entities in recent years. Last year, Shell came after Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit. After a quarter of a million people spoke out, the lawsuit was settled in December 2024.

This content is available after accepting the cookies.

Change cookie-settings View on Offshore-energy.

Charlie Cray, Greenpeace USA Senior Strategist, remarked: “Greenpeace has faced a long history of threats. When the Rainbow Warrior ship was bombed in 1985, we said ‘you can’t sink a rainbow.’ And now we’re saying: ‘you can’t sue a movement.’ Whatever happens in North Dakota, we will continue to campaign for a green and peaceful future.”