BATON ROUGE, Louisiana – A federal court in the state has recently made a significant ruling that has implications for the Biden administration’s climate agenda. U.S. District Judge James D. Cain Jr., appointed by former President Donald Trump, blocked the administration’s pause on approving new facilities for exporting liquefied natural gas. This decision follows a challenge filed by Louisiana and 15 other Republican-led states.
The ruling highlights the ongoing tension between the administration’s environmental goals and legal challenges from conservative and corporate entities. This decision adds to a series of recent legal setbacks for the Biden administration’s climate initiatives. Just last week, the Supreme Court issued decisions that limited federal agencies’ power to address environmental issues such as climate change and air pollution.
The White House had announced a temporary pause on approving new LNG projects to conduct a thorough study of their impact on climate change, the economy, and national security. This directive was intended to delay approval for nearly a dozen LNG projects beyond the November elections. However, the pause faced legal challenges from Republican attorneys general who argued that it circumvented the regulatory process and would harm their states’ fossil fuel-dependent economies.
Now, the Energy Department must resume evaluating permit applications for new LNG export projects. It remains unclear how quickly the agency will act, as the Natural Gas Act only requires the department to make these determinations “expeditiously” and in the public interest.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill praised the court’s decision, citing the economic benefits of LNG projects to the state. However, environmental justice advocates like Roishetta Ozane raised concerns about potential pollution and environmental impacts on vulnerable communities along the Gulf Coast.
The Energy Department and the White House expressed disappointment with the ruling and reiterated their commitment to informing decisions based on economic and environmental analysis. The decision underscores the challenges of balancing climate goals with economic interests and legal complexities in a deeply divided political landscape.