anons avoid KNEEJERK reactions - remember the headlines are FAKE - this was already vetted in notables - a news story that is already 2 days old is OLD news here LEARN TO search and review notables and keep situational awareness of FAKE (mislweading) headlines
Lawfag here to summarize the AK case where POTUS EO allowing drilling was over turned.
IMPORTANT NOTE - Congress has power over all federal lands under Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2 of the Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States…"
With this power Congress passed the "Outer Continental Shore Lines Act" of 1954. At issue in this case is the meaning of Section 12(a) of OCSLA: “The President of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.”
The party seeking to REVERSE what POTUS did argued that this text only authorizes a President to withdraw lands from disposition; it does not authorize a President to revoke a prior withdrawal and thus that power remains vested solely with Congress
POTUS lawyers countered by arguing that the section does not limit the President’s authority in any way, other than to clarify that lands must be unleased in order to be withdrawn and that the phrases “may . . . withdraw” amd that action that ‘may’ be taken ‘from time to time’—carries with it the implied power to revise action previously taken under the delegated authority.
HERE IS WHAT THE COURT SAID:
The text of Section 12(a) refers only to the withdrawal of lands; it does not expressly authorize the President to revoke a prior withdrawal. Congress appears to have expressed one concept—withdrawal—and excluded the converse— revocation.
However, the statute’s inclusion of the phrase “from time to time” renders the text of Section 12(a) ambiguous (AND SO COULD BE READ EITHER WAY)
HOW TO RESOLVE AMBIGUITY? COURT STATED: "In light of the ambiguity created by this aspect of Section 12(a)’s text, the Court will look to the context of the statute in an effort to discern the intent of Congress." (THIS IS NORMAL PRACTICE)
The Court went on to conclude that Congress did not intend to grant POTUS authority to REVOKE a prior REMOVAL - the arguments are not easy to summarize but IMO the Court got it right
Bottom line in simple terms - in other laws Congress granted POTUS power to remove and to revoke various actions - so the Court reasoanbly concluded if Congress had intended that in this case it could and would and should have done so.
So in any event it does not appear to be fuckery or anything outrageous - its just a quirk in the law. If you want to read it:
https://www.alaskapublic.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/80-Order-granting-MSJ-1.pdf