U.S. Code » Title 43 » Chapter CHAPTER 29— SUBMERGED LANDS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS

43 U.S.C. § 1349

Citizens suits, jurisdiction and judicial review

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 43 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Persons who may bring actions; persons against whom action may be brought; time of action; intervention by Attorney General; costs and fees; security(1) Except as provided in this section, any person having a valid legal interest which is or may be adversely affected may commence a civil action on his own behalf to compel compliance with this subchapter against any person, including the United States, and any other government instrumentality or agency (to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution) for any alleged violation of any provision of this subchapter or any regulation promulgated under this subchapter, or of the terms of any permit or lease issued by the Secretary under this subchapter.(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection, no action may be commenced under subsection (a)(1) of this section—(A) prior to sixty days after the plaintiff has given notice of the alleged violation, in writing under oath, to the Secretary and any other appropriate Federal official, to the State in which the violation allegedly occurred or is occurring, and to any alleged violator; or(B) if the Attorney General has commenced and is diligently prosecuting a civil action in a court of the United States or a State with respect to such matter, but in any such action in a court of the United States any person having a legal interest which is or may be adversely affected may intervene as a matter of right.(3) An action may be brought under this subsection immediately after notification of the alleged violation in any case in which the alleged violation constitutes an imminent threat to the public health or safety or would immediately affect a legal interest of the plaintiff.(4) In any action commenced pursuant to this section, the Attorney General, upon the request of the Secretary or any other appropriate Federal official, may intervene as a matter of right.(5) A court, in issuing any final order in any action brought pursuant to subsection (a)(1) or subsection (c) of this section, may award costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees, to any party, whenever such court determines such award is appropriate. The court may, if a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is sought, require the filing of a bond or equivalent security in a sufficient amount to compensate for any loss or damage suffered, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.(6) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, all suits challenging actions or decisions allegedly in violation of, or seeking enforcement of, the provisions of this subchapter, or any regulation promulgated under this subchapter, or the terms of any permit or lease issued by the Secretary under this subchapter, shall be undertaken in accordance with the procedures described in this subsection. Nothing in this section shall restrict any right which any person or class of persons may have under any other Act or common law to seek appropriate relief.(b) Jurisdiction and venue of actions(1) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, the district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of cases and controversies arising out of, or in connection with (A) any operation conducted on the outer Continental Shelf which involves exploration, development, or production of the minerals, of the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf, or which involves rights to such minerals, or (B) the cancellation, suspension, or termination of a lease or permit under this subchapter. Proceedings with respect to any such case or controversy may be instituted in the judicial district in which any defendant resides or may be found, or in the judicial district of the State nearest the place the cause of action arose.(2) Any resident of the United States who is injured in any manner through the failure of any operator to comply with any rule, regulation, order, or permit issued pursuant to this subchapter may bring an action for damages (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) only in the judicial district having jurisdiction under paragraph (1) of this subsection.(c) Review of Secretary’s approval of leasing program; review of approval, modification or disapproval of exploration or production plan; persons who may seek review; scope of review; certiorari to Supreme Court(1) Any action of the Secretary to approve a leasing program pursuant to section 1344 of this title shall be subject to judicial review only in the United States Court of Appeal 11 So in original. Probably should be “Appeals”. for the District of Columbia.(2) Any action of the Secretary to approve, require modification of, or disapprove any exploration plan or any development and production plan under this subchapter shall be subject to judicial review only in a United States court of appeals for a circuit in which an affected State is located.(3) The judicial review specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection shall be available only to a person who (A) participated in the administrative proceedings related to the actions specified in such paragraphs, (B) is adversely affected or aggrieved by such action, (C) files a petition for review of the Secretary’s action within sixty days after the date of such action, and (D) promptly transmits copies of the petition to the Secretary and to the Attorney General.(4) Any action of the Secretary specified in paragraph (1) or (2) shall only be subject to review pursuant to the provisions of this subsection, and shall be specifically excluded from citizen suits which are permitted pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.(5) The Secretary shall file in the appropriate court the record of any public hearings required by this subchapter and any additional information upon which the Secretary based his decision, as required by section 2112 of title 28. Specific objections to the action of the Secretary shall be considered by the court only if the issues upon which such objections are based have been submitted to the Secretary during the administrative proceedings related to the actions involved.(6) The court of appeals conducting a proceeding pursuant to this subsection shall consider the matter under review solely on the record made before the Secretary. The findings of the Secretary, if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive. The court may affirm, vacate, or modify any order or decision or may remand the proceedings to the Secretary for such further action as it may direct.(7) Upon the filing of the record with the court, pursuant to paragraph (5), the jurisdiction of the court shall be exclusive and its judgment shall be final, except that such judgment shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon writ of certiorari.(Aug. 7, 1953, ch. 345, § 23, as added Pub. L. 95–372, title II, § 208, Sept. 18, 1978, 92 Stat. 657; amended Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 402(44), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3360.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsec. (a)(5), are set out in the Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Amendments

1984—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 98–620 struck out subsec. (d) which provided that except as to causes of action considered by the court to be of greater importance, any action under this section would take precedence on the docket over all other causes of action and would be set for hearing at the earliest practical date and expedited in every way.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–620 not applicable to cases pending on Nov. 8, 1984, see section 403 of Pub. L. 98–620, set out as a note under section 1657 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 258 cases (61 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Francis Barker, Jr. v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., et, 713 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Francis Barker, Jr. v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., et, 713 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 2013). · cites it 10× “Motion to Remand The district court held, and Defendants maintain on appeal, that Barker’s suit was properly removed to federal court because the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act provides federal subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 43 U.S.C. § 1349 (b)(1).…”
Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985). · cites it 8× “657 , 43 U. S. C. § 1349 (a)(5). 54. Railway Labor Act of 1926, 44 Stat.”
Alaska Wilderness League v. Kempthorne, 548 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 26× “" 43 U.S.C. § 1349 (c)(6). We review a decision to forego preparation of an environmental impact statement under the arbitrary and capricious standard.”
Connecticut Ex Rel. Tong v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 83 F.4th 122 (2d Cir. 2023). · cites it 6× “§ 1442(a)(1), and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (the “OCSLA”), 43 U.S.C. § 1349 (b)(1)(A), as well as on other bases no longer pressed in this appeal.”
Ctr for Biological Diversity v. Ken Salazar, 683 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2012). · cites it 11× “We conclude that: (1) the petitioners’ OCSLA-based challenges are justiciable, except for four, which have become moot; (2) the DOI’s approval of the exploratory and development plans are subject to judicial review by this court under OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. § 1349 (c)(2); (3) the…”
Cnty. of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., 32 F.4th 733 (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 3× “308 (2005); (2) the Counties’ claims are “completely preempted” by federal law; (3) the Counties’ claims arose on “federal enclaves”; (4) the Counties’ claims arise out of operations on the outer Continental Shelf, see 43 U.S.C. § 1349 (b); (5) the Counties’ claims arise from…”
Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 473 (1981). · cites it 4× “The grant of jurisdiction to a federal district court is now codified at 43 U. S. C. § 1349 (b) (1) (1976 ed., Supp.”
Brown v. Offshore Specialty Fabricators, Inc., 663 F.3d 759 (5th Cir. 2011). · cites it 7× “See 43 U.S.C. § 1349 (b)(2). They point to the OCSLA’s jurisdiction and venue provision, which states that, “[a]ny resident of the United States who is injured in any manner through the failure of any operator to comply with any rule, regulation, order, or permit issued pursuant…”
Boulder Cnty. Commissioners v. Suncor Energy, 25 F.4th 1238 (10th Cir. 2022). · cites it 3× “2014) (quoting 43 U.S.C. § 1349 (b)(1)). The second prong of that test “require[s] only a but-for connection.”
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. David Bernhardt, 982 F.3d 723 (9th Cir. 2020). · cites it 4× “The panel held that it had original jurisdiction over plaintiff’s challenge to BOEM’s approval of the Liberty project under the OCSLA’s 43 U.S.C. § 1349 (c)(2), which included plaintiff’s challenge to the EIS prepared under NEPA and the biological opinion prepared under the ESA.”
Ctr. for Sustainable Econ. v. Sally Jewell, 779 F.3d 588 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · cites it 4× “That Program includes 15 potential lease sales in six OCS planning areas: the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico, the portion of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico not currently under congressional moratorium, and the Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, and Cook Inlet planning areas off the…”
City of Hoboken v. Chevron Corp, 45 F.4th 699 (3rd Cir. 2022). · cites it 3× “43 U.S.C. § 1349 (b)(1). 27 The companies stress that a sizable chunk of oil comes from the Shelf.”
Show all 258 citing cases →
— 43 U.S.C. § 1349(b)(1) — 3 cases
Stevenson v. Point Marine, Inc., 697 F. Supp. 285 (E.D. La. 1988).
Hebert v. Quality Prod. Mgmt. L L C (W.D. La. 2022).
Mayor & City Cncl. Of Balt. V. B.P. P.L.C. (Md. 2026).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.