Louisiana v. Biden

Louisiana, on behalf of other plaintiff states, and the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal defendants filed a joint stipulation of dismissal of the states’ lawsuit challenging the January 2024 federal pause on consideration of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export obligations. The stipulation noted that the Department of Energy had reversed the pause in response to President Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” executive order and that “[b]ecause the policy the States were challenging has been reversed, this matter is moot.”

The federal district court for the Western District of Louisiana granted a motion by Louisiana and other states for a stay of the Biden administration’s moratorium on new approvals of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries. The court first found that the moratorium was a reviewable final agency action and that the states had standing. The court then denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss counts alleging that the moratorium was contrary to law and not authorized by statute, violated notice-and-comment requirements, was arbitrary and capricious, and violated the Congressional Review Act because it was not submitted to Congress. In addition, the court declined to dismiss a claim that the moratorium violated the Foreign Commerce Clause and separation of powers as well as claims that the defendants’ actions were ultra vires. The court dismissed Administrative Procedure Act claims against the President. Regarding the stay, the court described the halt of LNG exports as “quite complexing” and questioned the cited purpose of updating information on how exports affect the economy, consumers, and the environment. The court wrote that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) “has made updates to its studies on several occasions without the President making an announcement of an unprecedented climate change action, and without the DOE declaring a wholesale ‘pause’” on export applications. The court found that the states demonstrated irreparable harm, that equities and public interest favored the states, and that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of all but one of the claims, which the court did not address.

–