On September 29, 2009, in an unpublished decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed an appeal of a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the government’s moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon incident. The court determined that if could not grant relief because the preliminary order enjoining the moratorium, which was issued on May 28, 2010, was subsequently rescinded by the Secretary of the Interior. The rescinded moratorium meant that “the preliminary injunction no longer has the same, if any, legal or practical effect.” After this action by the Secretary, the present appeal became mooted.
The majority’s opinion drew strong criticism from a dissenting judge, who concluded that it was the court’s “duty under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) to decide expeditionsly and finally whether the [Department of Interior] acted arbitrarily in issuing its 6-month deepwater drilling moratorium.” One interesting point raised by the dissent was the concern that “there is a genuine legal question whether the first moratorim continues to have force and effect.” In short, the dissent questioned whether the Secretary had the legal authority “to revoke the first moratorium and enter the second if such an action would strip [the court] of jurisdiction.”
Hornbeck Offshore Servs., LLC v. Salazar, No. 10-30585, slip op. (5th Cir. 2010).





