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)

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe