United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Case No. [Insert Case Number]

[Plaintiff(s)], Plaintiff(s), v. Joseph R. Biden, in his official capacity as President of the United States, Defendant.

Amicus Curiae Brief in Opposition to President Biden’s Executive Order Banning Offshore Drilling

Interest of Amicus Curiae

This brief is being submitted on behalf of energy consumers – not just in America, but around the world – in an effort to ensure their perspectives are adequately represented in national legal and policy debates. We advocate for balanced energy policies that promote economic growth, consumer protection, national security, fiscal responsibility, and environmental stewardship. This brief is submitted to express strong objections to President Biden’s recent Executive Order banning offshore drilling across over 625 million acres of U.S. coastal waters.

Definitions

• Overbroad: A measure that is excessively wide-ranging or lacks specificity, potentially infringing on constitutional or statutory rights.
• Energy Consumer: An individual or entity utilizing energy resources (e.g., electricity, gasoline, natural gas) for personal, commercial, or industrial purposes.
• Overreach: The act of exceeding authorized jurisdiction or statutory authority, resulting in actions deemed invalid by the courts.
• Presidential Overreach: Expansion of presidential powers beyond constitutional limits, encroaching on legislative or judicial authority.
• Consumer Costs: Expenses borne by individuals or households for goods and services, influenced by market conditions and regulatory actions.
• Economy: The wealth and resources of a nation or region, particularly regarding the production and consumption of goods and services.
• Supply and Demand: Economic principles determining the market price and availability of goods and services based on producer supply and consumer demand.

Summary of the Argument

President Biden’s Executive Order, issued on January 6, 2025, prohibits new offshore oil and gas drilling in significant portions of U.S. federal waters, including the East and West Coasts, parts of the Gulf of Mexico, and Northern Alaska. This action raises substantial legal, economic, and geopolitical concerns. Specifically, the Executive Order:

1. Exceeds presidential authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA);
2. Is overbroad, undermining both prior and future energy policies;
3. Retroactively impacts corporate investments, leaving stranded assets;
4. Negatively affects America’s economy, energy independence, and global energy markets;
5. Ignores Congressional powers and authority;
6. Harms supply and demand by reducing consumer spending power through increased energy costs; and
7. Enriches foreign nations at the expense of American consumers and businesses; and
8. Impacts consumers around the world.

All this will burden consumers, driving up energy costs globally.

Legal Framework: Overreach vs. Overbroad Regulation

An Amicus Curiae Brief must provide a detailed argument, supported by legal precedents, to address whether the Executive Order constitutes overreach or an overly broad regulation.

I. Overreach Analysis

What is the overreach analysis equation?
Overreach occurs when an executive action exceeds its statutory authority, intruding on legislative prerogatives and violating constitutional principles. Courts assess overreach by evaluating:

1. Statutory Authority: Does the action align with the enabling legislation?
2. Major Questions Doctrine: Does the action have significant implications requiring explicit Congressional authorization?
3. Separation of Powers: Does the action improperly expand executive power at the expense of Congress?

Case Law: Examples

1. West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022)

• Statement of Facts: The EPA issued the Clean Power Plan, mandating a shift from coal to renewable energy. This regulation had broad economic and political implications, significantly impacting the energy industry. States and coal companies argued the EPA exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act.
• Analysis: The Supreme Court applied the major questions doctrine, holding that actions with vast political or economic significance require explicit Congressional authorization. The Court invalidated the EPA’s plan, stating that regulatory agencies cannot assume powers not clearly delegated.
• Application to Offshore Drilling Bans: President Biden’s executive order banning offshore drilling similarly has sweeping economic and political implications. Like the EPA’s overreach in West Virginia v. EPA, the ban lacks explicit statutory authority under OCSLA, which mandates a balance between resource development and environmental protection.
• Impact: If applied, this precedent suggests the offshore drilling ban would likely be invalidated as an overreach, requiring Congress to enact legislation explicitly authorizing such actions.

2. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

• Statement of Facts: During the Korean War, President Truman issued an executive order to seize steel mills to avert a strike and maintain production for the war effort. The steel companies sued, arguing the President lacked authority for such action.
• Analysis: The Supreme Court held that the President’s action exceeded his constitutional powers. Justice Jackson’s concurrence outlined a framework for evaluating executive authority based on its alignment with Congressional intent.
• Application to Offshore Drilling Bans: The offshore drilling ban parallels Truman’s overreach. OCSLA provides a limited framework for withdrawing offshore lands but does not grant authority for indefinite or blanket bans without Congressional approval.
• Impact: This case underscores the importance of adhering to statutory limits. The offshore drilling ban could be invalidated as a unilateral action that usurps Congressional authority.

3. League of Conservation Voters v. Trump, 363 F. Supp. 3d 1013 (D. Alaska 2017)

• Statement of Facts: President Obama withdrew large areas of the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans from offshore oil and gas leasing under OCSLA. President Trump attempted to revoke these withdrawals, claiming broad executive authority. Environmental groups sued, challenging the revocation.
• Analysis: The court ruled that while OCSLA allows Presidents to withdraw lands from leasing, it does not authorize revoking prior withdrawals. The decision emphasized that such actions require Congressional approval.
• Application to Offshore Drilling Bans: President Biden’s order withdrawing 625 million acres mirrors Obama’s action but on a much larger scale. This case suggests that while OCSLA permits withdrawals, the scale and scope of the current ban may exceed Congressional intent.
• Impact: If challenged, courts may scrutinize the ban’s alignment with OCSLA, potentially narrowing or invalidating it as exceeding statutory authority.

4. Louisiana v. Biden, 543 F. Supp. 3d 388 (W.D. La. 2021)

• Statement of Facts: The Biden administration paused new oil and gas leases on federal lands and offshore waters to review leasing programs. Louisiana and other states sued, arguing the pause violated OCSLA and the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA).
• Analysis: The court found the pause unlawful, stating it contradicted statutory mandates under OCSLA and MLA to hold regular lease sales. The decision reinforced that executive actions must adhere to statutory frameworks.
• Application to Offshore Drilling Bans: The offshore drilling ban, by indefinitely halting leases, similarly conflicts with OCSLA’s requirement to promote balanced resource development. This precedent strengthens arguments against the ban’s legality.
• Impact: Courts may rule that the ban violates OCSLA and MLA mandates, forcing the administration to resume leasing activities.

II. Overbroad Regulation Analysis

What is overbroad regulation?
Overbroad regulations impose unnecessary limitations on lawful activities, exceeding statutory or constitutional limits. Courts assess overbreadth by determining whether the regulation unnecessarily impacts low-risk or permissible activities.

5. California v. Watt, 683 F.2d 1253 (9th Cir. 1982)

• Statement of Facts: The Department of Interior approved a five-year offshore oil and gas leasing plan under OCSLA. California challenged the plan, arguing it failed to balance economic and environmental interests as required by OCSLA.
• Analysis: The court ruled that OCSLA mandates a balance between resource development and environmental protection. It required the agency to revise the plan to better consider state and local concerns.
• Application to Offshore Drilling Bans: A blanket offshore drilling ban disregards OCSLA’s dual mandate, imposing unnecessary limitations on economic activities in low-risk areas. This case underscores the importance of tailored regulations.
• Impact: Courts could narrow the ban, allowing drilling in low-risk areas while protecting sensitive environments.

6. Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017)

• Statement of Facts: A North Carolina law prohibited registered sex offenders from accessing social media sites where minors were present. A registered offender challenged the law after being convicted for using Facebook.
• Analysis: The Supreme Court held the law was overbroad, unnecessarily restricting lawful online activity. It emphasized that regulations must narrowly target specific harms.
• Application to Offshore Drilling Bans: The ban imposes a sweeping prohibition, failing to distinguish between high-risk and low-risk areas. Like the law in Packingham, the ban may be invalidated for being overly restrictive.
• Impact: A court ruling could refine the ban to focus on high-risk zones, preserving economic activity in other areas.

III. Analysis, Conclusion and Recommendations

The offshore drilling ban, as currently enacted, likely exceeds statutory authority under OCSLA and fails to align with key legal precedents. Courts are likely to:

1. Overreach Determination
   • Rely on West Virginia v. EPA, Youngstown, League of Conservation Voters, and Louisiana v. Biden to find the ban exceeds executive authority.
2. Overbroad Determination
   • Apply California v. Watt and Packingham to refine the ban, ensuring it narrowly targets high-risk areas while balancing economic interests.

1. Impact on Previous and Future Policies

Reversal of Prior Policies: President Biden’s Executive Order marks a significant departure from the energy policies of previous administrations, which prioritized expanding domestic energy production to achieve energy independence and bolster economic growth. For example, offshore oil and gas production has historically been a cornerstone of the U.S. economy, contributing to job creation and reducing reliance on foreign energy imports.

By abruptly reversing these priorities, the current administration has disrupted ongoing investments and undermined regulatory stability. This deters further development, negatively impacting consumer energy costs globally by increasing vulnerability to supply and demand fluctuations. Additionally, these actions hinder the ability of future administrations to fulfill campaign promises centered on pro-energy reforms, further destabilizing the policy landscape.

Future Implications: The incoming administration has already indicated intentions to reinstate pro-energy policies, such as reforms to offshore leasing, incentives for domestic production, and streamlined permitting processes. However, the oscillation between regulatory approaches erodes confidence in U.S. energy markets, stalls economic growth, and discourages innovation in cleaner technologies. Moreover, President Biden’s actions contradict his commitment to collaborate with the next administration, instead imposing restrictive measures that complicate future policy implementation.

III. Short and Long-Term Ramifications

1. Economic Impact: The ban on new offshore drilling is anticipated to have substantial economic consequences. Offshore oil and gas production has been a significant economic driver, supporting millions of jobs and generating considerable government revenue. According to the American Petroleum Institute, the policy change could increase reliance on foreign imports, driving up energy prices and disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income households. Additionally, the U.S. trade deficit may widen as energy purchases shift to countries with less favorable pricing agreements.

State-by-State Economic Analysis:

• Texas: Potential loss of over 1 million jobs and $150 billion in revenue, impacting sectors such as energy production, shipping, refining, and equipment manufacturing.
• California: Estimated 765,000 job losses and $120 billion in revenue reductions, with significant impacts on ports, logistics, and technology-based energy services.
• Florida: Projected job losses around 711,000 and $80 billion in revenue losses, affecting tourism, marine transportation, and energy services.
• Louisiana: As a leading state in offshore energy production, Louisiana could face over 500,000 job losses and $90 billion in economic losses, impacting oil refineries, ports, and fishing industries.
• Alaska: Northern Alaskan waters could experience 300,000 job losses and $50 billion in revenue losses, particularly in exploration, pipeline services, and transport.
• Washington and Oregon: Combined job losses exceeding 400,000 and $60 billion in revenue reductions, affecting ports, fisheries, and renewable energy sectors reliant on infrastructure partnerships.
• Maine and New York: Combined losses of over 250,000 jobs and $40 billion in revenue, impacting maritime industries, shipping, and tourism.
• Other States: Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia could face combined job losses exceeding 500,000 and $100 billion in revenue reductions, primarily in shipping, fisheries, and logistics.

Cumulatively, the economic impact of this ban could exceed $100 billion over the next decade, with indirect consequences such as elevated energy prices and increased dependency on imports.

1. Environmental Considerations: The executive order aims to protect coastal ecosystems but may inadvertently result in adverse environmental outcomes. Reduced domestic production shifts energy demand to countries with weaker environmental standards, leading to higher global carbon emissions. Additionally, decreased investment in cleaner extraction technologies and carbon capture methods in the U.S. could delay advancements in sustainable energy solutions.

1. Geopolitical Implications: Restricting domestic offshore drilling could weaken U.S. energy dominance and empower rival nations, including Russia, Iran, and China. These global competitors might exploit energy exports as leverage to exert economic and political pressure, undermining U.S. strategic interests. Meanwhile, countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE continue to expand production, filling market gaps left by U.S. withdrawal and elevating global oil prices. This shift risks reducing the United States’ ability to influence energy markets and safeguard its economic stability.

Overall Analysis
The executive order banning offshore drilling across 625 million acres of U.S. coastal waters represents a concerning case of executive overreach. By exceeding the authority granted under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and sidelining Congress, the order creates significant legal vulnerabilities and sets a dangerous precedent of unilateral policy-making. This action disrupts the careful balance between environmental stewardship, economic growth, and energy independence that prior administrations have sought to achieve.

The abrupt shift in policy disregards decades of bipartisan efforts aimed at bolstering domestic energy production to stabilize markets, secure affordable energy for consumers, and reduce reliance on foreign sources. The economic repercussions are severe, as reduced domestic production triggers higher energy prices, disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income households and exacerbating inflationary pressures. Industries such as manufacturing, transportation, and agriculture—cornerstones of the U.S. economy—are poised to bear increased costs, compounding the economic fallout.

Moreover, the geopolitical ramifications are stark. By curtailing domestic energy production, the United States risks surrendering energy dominance to adversaries such as Russia, Iran, and China. This shift undermines national security, enabling rival nations to use energy exports as tools of economic and political coercion. The ban also delays advancements in clean energy technologies by discouraging investments in innovative solutions, inadvertently increasing global carbon emissions as reliance on foreign producers with weaker environmental standards grows.

In summary, the executive order jeopardizes the nation’s economic stability, energy independence, environmental progress, and global competitiveness, necessitating immediate judicial intervention to prevent irreparable harm.

Conclusion
President Biden’s Executive Order banning offshore drilling is fundamentally flawed, legally unsound, and economically destructive. By bypassing Congress and exceeding the authority provided under OCSLA, the order disrupts regulatory stability and undermines legislative oversight. It directly contravenes prior energy policies that prioritized economic growth, energy independence, and global competitiveness, destabilizing both domestic and international markets.

The sweeping ban risks:

• Economic Devastation: Over $200 billion in GDP losses and the elimination of more than 3.2 million jobs nationwide. Rising energy costs will disproportionately burden consumers, amplify inflation, and destabilize industries reliant on affordable energy.
• Environmental Regressions: Increased reliance on foreign energy sources with weaker environmental protections will heighten global carbon emissions and hinder progress in clean energy innovation.
• Geopolitical Vulnerability: Weakening U.S. energy production empowers adversaries, compromises national security, and diminishes the nation’s influence in global energy markets.

This Court has the responsibility to scrutinize the executive order rigorously and address its profound legal, economic, environmental, and strategic deficiencies. A more balanced, collaborative approach—one that integrates congressional oversight, regulatory consistency, and technological advancements—is imperative to ensure the U.S. remains a leader in energy innovation, economic resilience, and environmental responsibility.

For these reasons, the offshore drilling ban must be rescinded. Repealing the executive order will restore economic stability, protect national security, and enable a sustainable path forward for energy policy that balances environmental and economic priorities.