David F. Engstrom, a law professor at Stanford University, said there are several justifications for such challenges under the Administrative Procedures Act. In this case, Feldman granted the preliminary injunction after deciding that the oil companies would probably prevail in their arguments that Interior's actions were "arbitrary and capricious" and that they were being harmed irreparably by the moratorium. Under that standard, Feldman -- and the appeals court that will review his order -- must decide whether there is "a rational connection between the facts that the agency found and the action that it took," Engstrom said.
In his order Tuesday, Feldman emphatically said there was not. "The Court is unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the [Interior Department's] findings and the immense scope of the moratorium," he said.
He added that the administration's drilling suspension "does not seem to be fact-specific and refuses to take into measure the safety records of those others in the Gulf." He said that "the blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger."