Kerr--Mcgee Corporation v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of the Interior

527 F.2d 838, 174 U.S. App. D.C. 55, 54 Oil & Gas Rep. 149, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11336
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedDecember 23, 1975
Docket74--2088
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 527 F.2d 838 (Kerr--Mcgee Corporation v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of the Interior) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kerr--Mcgee Corporation v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of the Interior, 527 F.2d 838, 174 U.S. App. D.C. 55, 54 Oil & Gas Rep. 149, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11336 (D.C. Cir. 1975).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellants seek to compel the Secretary of the Interior to award them an oil and gas lease on Tract 2124 on the Outer Continental Shelf. See 43 U.S.C. § 1337(a) (1970). All bids on Tract 2124 were rejected as being too low, including the high bid submitted by appellants which was 16 per cent of the risk-free value set by the Government. Adjacent tracts received high bids of between 51 and 731 per cent of the risk-free value. Kerr-McGee’s bid on Tract 2124 was $142 per acre. Adjacent tracts drew high bids per acre of $720 to $5,674. In his notice of bid in this case the Secretary clearly reserved “the right and discretion to reject any and all bids, regardless of the amount offered.”

The District Court upheld the action of the Secretary on the ground that his decision is committed by law to agency discretion. 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2) (1970). We do not agree with the District Court that the Secretary’s decision in this case is committed by law to agency discretion. “The legislative history of the Administrative Procedure Act indicates that [the ‘committed to agency discretion’ exception] is applicable in those rare instances where ‘statutes are drawn in such broad terms that in a given case there is no law to apply.’ ” Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 410, 91 S.Ct. 814, 820, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971). This case is not one of those rare instances. We affirm the District Court, however, on the ground that the Secretary did not abuse his discretion in rejecting appellants’’ bid. See Superior Oil Co. v. Udall, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 198, 204, 409 F.2d 1115, 1121 (1969).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Watt
517 F. Supp. 1209 (District of Columbia, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
527 F.2d 838, 174 U.S. App. D.C. 55, 54 Oil & Gas Rep. 149, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerr-mcgee-corporation-v-rogers-c-b-morton-secretary-of-the-interior-cadc-1975.