Interesting lawsuit

There was a hearing today in the suit brought to enjoin the federal government from imposing a six month ban on off shore drilling. The suit was brought by oil service and other drilling-related businesses who livelihood will dry up during the ban. These companies contend that the government arbitrarily imposed the ban without any factual basis to show that the activities on the other wells (beside the leaking one) were dangerous. The state of Louisiana has joined with the plaintiffs inseeking to enjoin the ban.

Government lawyers said the Interior Department has demonstrated that industry regulators need more time to study the risks of deepwater drilling and identify ways to make it safer. "There is a lot the department does not know, and that's precisely why it's important to conduct these studies and learn more," said Justice Department attorney Guillermo Montero.

When the judge asked why this spill engendered a ban when the Exxon Valdez and other events did not, he was told, "The Deepwater Horizon blowout was a game-changer. It really illustrates the risks that are inherent in deepwater drilling."

It will be intereting to see how the judge rules. His decision is due by Wednesday. On the one hand, there are literally thousands of people who have nothing to do with the Horizon well who will lose their livelihoods as a result of the government ban. Can they be deprived of their ability to make a living without due process of law? Doesn't the government need some rational connection between the ban and the likelihood of additional danger? On the other hand, this is an emergency and the government has great power in such situations.

My hope is that the ban will be enjoined. The government does not have unfettered power in all instances. It certainly could refuse to issue new permits for a time, a move that would eventually have the effect of stopping the offshore drilling. for the government to just shut down wells that are already being drilled, however, is clearly a taking of property under the constitutional definition. A need for experts to study a situation is not a sufficient basis for a constitutional taking in my opinion.