New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Supreme Court Rejects Gulf Oil Spill Contempt Case

The Interior Department will not be held in contempt over its actions in the aftermath of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill after the Supreme Court declined on Monday to review an appeals court ruling in the government's favor.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Interior Department will not be held in contempt over its actions in the aftermath of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill after the Supreme Court declined on Monday to review an appeals court ruling in the government's favor.

The nine justices refused to hear an appeal filed by Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC, a drilling company subsidiary of Hornbeck Offshore Services Inc, and other businesses affected by a moratorium on deep sea drilling that the federal government imposed in May 2010. The federal appeals court ruling that overturned a federal district judge's contempt finding remains intact.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In April 2010, the Deepwater Horizon rig, owned by Transocean Ltd and leased by BP PLC, exploded, causing 11 deaths and a massive oil spill.

The Interior Department's temporary drilling moratorium was immediately challenged by the drilling industry, prompting U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman of the Eastern District of Louisiana to rule in June 2010 that the government could not enforce it.

Despite the court order, the moratorium remained in effect in a modified fashion until October 2010.

The following year, Feldman held the government in contempt for violating his order and said it must pay almost $530,000 in legal fees to the companies that challenged the moratorium.

In an April 2013 ruling, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Feldman's ruling. It said that although the government had violated the spirit of his order, its actions did not technically violate it. The companies then sought high court review.

The case is Hornbeck v. Jewell, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-56.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and Jeffrey Benkoe)

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe