The ruling came in a suit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity against the US Department of the Interior. The Center argued that:

1. The leasing program violates the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), because Interior failed to take into consideration both the effects of climate change on OCS areas and the program’s effects on climate change (the climate change claims).

2. The program also violates both OCSLA and NEPA because Interior approved the program without conducting sufficient biological baseline research for the three Alaskan seas, and further failed to provide a research plan detailing how it would obtain this baseline data before the next stage of the program.

3. Interior violated the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) by failing to consult with either the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Fish and Wildlife) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) about potential harm to endangered species in the OCS planning areas before it adopted the leasing program.

4. The program violates OCSLA because it irrationally relied on an insufficient study by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration in assessing the environmental sensitivity of the OCS planning areas in the program.

The court dismissed the NEPA-based climate change claim, the NEPA baseline data clime, and the ESA claim. However:

...we conclude that Petitioners’ remaining OCSLA-based challenges are all justiciable. Of these three remaining claims, Petitioners’ OCSLA-based climate change claims and their OCSLA-rooted baseline data challenge ultimately lack merit and must fail. However, we find meritorious Petitioners’ challenge to the Leasing Program on grounds that the Program’s environmental sensitivity rankings are irrational. Accordingly, we vacate the Leasing Program, and remand the Program to the Secretary for reconsideration in accordance with this opinion.