Environmental Law: Biden v. Louisiana

Written by: Thomas Howald, Jakob Tawney

Edited by: Erin Riley and Anna Ramesh

Background

The case Biden v. Louisiana looks at withdrawing from gas and oil leasing off the coast. However it also is creating precedent for presidential overreach when it comes to policing climate change.

In early 2025, the Biden administration issued an executive order withdrawing large portions of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) from oil and gas leasing. This move was aimed at protection of sensitive marine ecosystems and addressing growing climate concerns. It did this by halting future energy development in key offshore regions, including parts of the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico. The Outer Continental Shelf refers to submerged lands located beyond the boundaries of individual states but still under federal jurisdiction. These areas are managed through the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), a 1953 statute that governs leasing and resource extraction on these federal lands.

In response to the executive order, the State of Louisiana, joined by several other states and industry groups, filed suit against the Biden administration. The plaintiffs argue that the President lacks the constitutional authority to unilaterally withdraw these federal lands from leasing, and that doing so amounts to an overreach of executive power. Their case leans heavily on the non-delegation doctrine, which states that Congress cannot pass off its legislative powers to the executive branch without clear and specific guidelines. It also invokes the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress, not the President, the authority to regulate federal property. Finally, the plaintiffs are relying on what's known as the "major questions doctrine," a relatively recent and increasingly influential principle in administrative law. Under this doctrine, courts have required Congress to clearly authorize executive actions on issues with sweeping political or economic consequences, such as major shifts in national energy policy.

This case, Louisiana v. Biden, is currently being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. As of now, the case remains in its early stages, with no ruling yet on preliminary motions, meaning that no injunction has been issued to halt the implementation of the executive order. But given the magnitude of the legal questions raised, this is likely just the beginning. Legal observers expect the case to advance through the appellate courts and possibly reach the U.S. Supreme Court, especially given the Court's recent interest in reining in the administrative state and clarifying the limits of executive authority.

The road to this lawsuit began with the Biden administration's broader climate agenda. From the onset of his presidency, Biden has emphasized the need to transition away from fossil fuels.This particular withdrawal follows a series of orders dating back to 2021, including Executive Order 13990, which called for a comprehensive review of federal oil and gas leasing practices. That order set the stage for the current ban and made clear the administration's intention to treat climate change as a central policy priority, even if doing so invites legal challenges.

Precedent

This is not the first time a president's authority to regulate energy development on public lands has been challenged in court. A notable historical parallel can be found in State of Alaska v. Obama (2016), where the Obama administration withdrew large sections of the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans from oil and gas leasing under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). In that case, environmental groups supported the withdrawal, while state governments and industry leaders pushed back. The matter never reached a final Supreme Court ruling, but it laid the groundwork for understanding the scope of executive authority under OCSLA.

Similarly, the first Trump administration attempted to reverse Obama's withdrawals, leading to another legal confrontation in League of Conservation Voters v. Trump (2017). A federal district court in Alaska ruled that Trump's reversal exceeded his authority, stating that while a president may withdraw offshore areas from leasing, only Congress can revoke such a withdrawal. Though the ruling was eventually rendered moot when Trump left office and Biden reinstated the bans, it reinforced a key precedent: executive authority over offshore leasing is broad, but not unlimited.

Moreover, the current legal landscape has changed significantly. With the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which emphasized limits on agency power when addressing issues of major national significance, courts may be more receptive now to arguments about executive overreach.

Conclusion

Given these shifts, even if past cases favored expansive presidential authority, this case may chart a different path, particularly if it reaches the Supreme Court. If the courts uphold the withdrawal from fossil fuels, it would reaffirm a broad reading of presidential authority under the OCSLA and could embolden future presidents to take similarly bold actions on environmental matters. On the other hand, if the courts side with the plaintiffs, the ruling could rein in executive discretion and require more direct congressional involvement in shaping climate policy. Either outcome will carry serious implications for how the U.S. government manages public lands and tackles environmental challenges in the years ahead.

At its core, Louisiana v. Biden is about more than oil leases. This case is a constitutional showdown over if federal or state can make the call when it comes to the environment, public lands, and national energy priorities.