The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against three environmental organizations that sought to challenge the approval of a deepwater liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project in the Gulf of America. The court found that the petitioners did not have standing to bring the case, meaning they could not demonstrate a specific injury caused by the project. This decision affects the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and Habitat Recovery Project, who had hoped to halt the project based on environmental concerns.
The case, known as Center for Biological Diversity v. TRAN, was filed under docket number 25-60282 on July 7, 2026. The ruling comes after years of environmental review by the United States Maritime Administration (MARAD), which approved the project proposed by Delfin LNG. The court's decision emphasizes the need for petitioners to show a concrete injury to have legal standing in such cases.
Background
The parties involved in this case include the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and Habitat Recovery Project as petitioners, and the United States Department of Transportation, the United States Maritime Administration, and other federal officials as respondents. The dispute centers around the approval of a deepwater LNG-export project that would involve a cluster of floating vessels moored offshore, which would liquefy natural gas and load it onto tankers for export.
In 2015, Delfin LNG submitted an application to MARAD and the Coast Guard for the project. The Deepwater Port Act required MARAD to notify the governors of Texas and Louisiana about the project, allowing them to approve or disapprove it. After extensive public hearings and a detailed environmental impact statement, MARAD issued a record of decision in 2017 approving the project. However, as the project evolved over the years, Delfin made several modifications, prompting MARAD to reassess its approval.
In 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing MARAD to decide quickly whether the changes made to the project would significantly alter its environmental impact. MARAD concluded that the modifications would actually reduce the project's environmental effects and subsequently issued a license for the project in March 2025. This led to the environmental groups filing a petition for review, claiming that MARAD had violated several environmental statutes.
The Ruling
The Fifth Circuit Court ruled that the petitioners lacked standing to challenge MARAD's licensing decision. The court stated, "Because Petitioners have not shown an injury in fact fairly traceable to MARAD’s licensing decision, we lack power to reach the merits." This ruling was made by Circuit Judges Smith, Willett, and Ramirez.
The court emphasized that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury that was directly linked to the project. The ruling pointed out that while the petitioners expressed concern for the Gulf environment, they did not identify any specific member who would be directly affected by the project. The court noted that general concerns without evidence of injury do not meet the legal requirement for standing.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for future environmental challenges. It underscores the importance of demonstrating standing in court, particularly in cases involving large infrastructure projects. Without the ability to show a specific injury, environmental groups may find it more difficult to contest government approvals of similar projects in the future.
The decision also highlights the court's interpretation of the standing requirement, which necessitates a clear connection between the alleged harm and the actions being challenged. This ruling may serve as a precedent for future cases where environmental organizations seek to challenge federal agency decisions based on perceived environmental threats.
What's Next
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether the decision can be appealed. However, the ruling sets a significant legal precedent regarding standing in environmental cases, potentially affecting similar future challenges.