Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Greenpeace Efforts to Stop Arctic Drilling

Shell has presented evidence that Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace entities

around the world are publicly committed to stopping Shell’s exploration of its

Arctic OSC leases. Indeed, the websites of virtually all Greenpeace organizations,

including Greenpeace USA, prominently feature a campaign to “stop Shell.”

2 But “stop Shell” is not merely a campaign of words and images. Greenpeace

USA also uses so-called “direct actions” to achieve its goals, and its general

counsel has conceded that direct action can include illegal activity. There is

evidence that Greenpeace USA and its counterparts around the globe are united in

the goal of stopping Shell. When Greenpeace activists forcibly boarded an oil rig

off the coast of Greenland in 2010 and used their bodies to impede a drilling

operation, Greenpeace USA’s executive director described their conduct as “bold

non-violent direct action” by “our activists.” Greenpeace USA similarly endorsed

the forcible boarding of a Shell vessel by Greenpeace New Zealand activists in

February 2012, again referring to them as “our brave activists.”

The record before the district…

*1284 OPINION

Shell Offshore, Inc. and Shell Gulf of Mexico, Inc. (together, “Shell”) hold multiyear oil and gas leases in the Outer Continental Shelf (“OCS”), located in the Arctic Ocean off the coast of Alaska. Greenpeace, Inc. (“Greenpeace USA”) has publicly undertaken a campaign to “stop Shell” from drilling in the Arctic. The district court granted Shell’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which prohibited Greenpeace USA from coming within a specified distance of vessels involved in Shell’s Arctic OCS exploration and from committing various unlawful and tortious acts against those vessels. Greenpeace USA argues that the action is not justiciable, that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue its order, and that the court erred in its application of Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 , 129 S.Ct. 365 , 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008), to the merits of Shell’s motion. We conclude that the action presents a justiciable case or controversy, that the district court had jurisdiction to issue its order, and that it did not abuse its discretion in doing so. Accordingly, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Greenpeace Efforts to Stop Arctic…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur with Parts III and IV of the majority opinion that discuss justiciability and jurisdiction. I part ways with the majority, however, where it holds that Shell may impute the actions of other independent Greenpeace entities to Greenpeace USA in order to meet Shell’s burden of proof. 1 Because I cannot support the imposition of legal sanctions on Greenpeace USA based, in significant part, on the conduct of others that Greenpeace USA does not control, I respectfully dissent.

I.

The majority claims that Greenpeace USA was properly enjoined because the “evidence showed that stopping Shell and other oil companies from drilling in the Arctic is more likely than not one of the overall priority strategies of Greenpeace Worldwide, as well as of Greenpeace USA.” (Maj. Op. at 1289-90) (quoting Shell Offshore Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 864 *1293 F.Supp.2d 839, 848 (D.Alaska 2012)). Of course, Greenpeace USA does not dispute that it seeks to stop Shell from drilling in the Arctic. Rather, Greenpeace USA disputes that Shell has presented sufficient evidence to show that Greenpeace USA will likely use illegal methods to achieve its goal.…