Legal battle brews over Biden’s offshore drilling plan

The debate extends beyond legal filings to encompass broader environmental and public health considerations.


In a significant development that pits environmental concerns against the imperatives of energy security, the Biden administration’s latest offshore drilling plan has ignited a firestorm of legal challenges. This plan, marking the smallest number of lease sales since the inception of such schedules in 1980, has drawn sharp criticism and legal action from both the oil and gas sector and environmental advocacy groups, each wielding distinct arguments about the future of America’s energy landscape.

At the heart of the controversy are two diametrically opposed petitions filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The American Petroleum Institute (API), representing the oil and gas industry, challenges the administration’s plan on grounds that it could jeopardize American energy independence. “Demand for affordable, reliable energy is only growing, yet this administration has used every tool at its disposal to restrict access to vast energy resources in federal waters,” stated API General Counsel Ryan Meyers. On the other side, Earthjustice, representing a coalition of eight environmental organizations, contests the plan for its alleged failure to consider the health impacts on local communities proximate to the drilling sites.

Environmental groups, spearheaded by Earthjustice, have articulated a strong opposition to the expansion of offshore drilling, framing it as fundamentally incompatible with a sustainable future. Brettny Hardy, an attorney for Earthjustice, emphasized the existing overallocation of resources to the fossil fuel industry, stating, “The oil and gas industry is already sitting on nine million acres of undeveloped leases. They certainly are not entitled to more.” This stance is underpinned by concerns over the health of overburdened communities, with allegations that the Department of the Interior did not fully evaluate the public health ramifications of the National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program.

Conversely, the oil and gas industry, through the voice of the API, asserts that the Biden administration’s plan unduly restricts access to critical energy resources, threatening to increase America’s reliance on foreign energy. The API’s challenge is rooted in the belief that the existing leases are insufficient to meet the nation’s growing energy demands, a perspective that underscores the industry’s push for a more expansive leasing program.

The debate extends beyond legal filings to encompass broader environmental and public health considerations. Environmental advocates argue that the Gulf Coast communities, already burdened by the impacts of offshore drilling, stand to face even greater risks should the plan proceed. The potential endangerment of critical species, such as the Rice’s whale, and the exacerbation of climate change effects are central to their objections. “Gulf waters have never been hotter. Rising seas are swamping the Gulf coast. It’s time to break, not deepen, our dependence on the very fossil fuels that are driving the climate and biodiversity crises,” remarked Brad Sewell, Oceans Program Director at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

Public sentiment, as evidenced by nearly one million comments against offshore drilling submitted during the plan’s public comment period, reflects widespread opposition to further expansion of oil and gas development in U.S. waters. This groundswell of public opposition is juxtaposed against the industry’s insistence on the necessity of new leases to secure America’s energy future.

As the legal battles unfold, the discourse around the Biden administration’s offshore drilling plan underscores the complex interplay between environmental stewardship and energy policy. With both sides entrenched in their positions, the resolution of these legal challenges will have far-reaching implications for the direction of America’s energy and environmental policies.

In the words of Pete Stauffer, Ocean Protection Manager at the Surfrider Foundation, “The industry’s unwarranted lawsuit belies the fact that new offshore drilling is broadly unpopular and is not needed to meet our nation’s energy needs. Moreover, new offshore drilling will increase carbon pollution and undermine U.S. and global efforts to address climate change.”


If you liked this article, please donate $5 to keep NationofChange online through November.

Previous articleHouse of Representatives impeach Homeland Security secretary
Next articleHow to deal with an insurrectionist
Ruth Milka started as an intern for NationofChange in 2015. Known for her thoughtful and thorough approach, Ruth is committed to shedding light on the intersection of environmental issues and their impact on human communities. Her reporting consistently highlights the urgency of environmental challenges while emphasizing the human stories at the heart of these issues. Ruth’s work is driven by a passion for truth and a dedication to informing the public about critical global matters concerning the environment and human rights.