SpaceX, Elon Musk’s space exploration and exploitation company, has filed suit against the California Coastal Commission, alleging “the Commission has engaged in naked political discrimination against Plaintiff Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) in violation of the rights of free speech and due process enshrined in the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.” The lawsuit goes on to allege:
“Rarely has a government agency made so clear that it was exceeding its authorized mandate to punish a company for the political views and statements of its largest shareholder and CEO. Second, the Commission is trying to unlawfully regulate space launch programs—which are critical to national security and other national policy objectives—at Vandenberg Space Force Base (the Base), a federal enclave and the world’s second busiest spaceport.”
The lawsuit’s factual basis is that the US Air Force requested an increase in SpaceX’s launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base. SpaceX had been approved for 36 launches in the upcoming year and wanted that number upped to 50. Mind you, this was the USAF requesting to be able to launch from a US military base. Last Thursday, the California Coastal Commission turned down the request by a 6-4 vote.
It is more than a little unclear how the California Coastal Commission has any authority here other than, over the years, the US military has become so enamored of being loved that it lets itself be bullied by just about any state or local government. The reasons the Commission gave were sort of bizarre, as increasing launches from 36 to 50 made no difference. The Commission officially insisted that SpaceX apply for a Coastal Development Permit, which, by law, cannot interfere with activities on federal land like a Space Force base. In fact, what was apparent from public statements by various Commissioners was that Elon Musk’s politics were the issue. See Why Did the California Coastal Commission Deny SpaceX Permission to Launch? ‘Orange Man Bad.’
Among the issues raised were Musk’s decision to insert himself in the presidential race, his spreading of conspiracy theories, the labor record of his companies and derogatory comments he has made about the transgender community.
“We’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race,” commission Chair Caryl Hart said.
…
“This company is owned by the richest person in the world with direct control of what could be the most expansive communications system in the planet,” Commissioner Mike Wilson said. “Just last week that person was talking about political retribution.”
Wilson asked how could members of the commission be assured that equipment being launched would benefit U.S. interests if most of it was for the benefit of a private company.
“Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] while claiming his desire to help hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet,” Commissioner Gretchen Newsom said.
The SpaceX lawsuit adds more color commentary.
95. The Commission also made clear that its objection was rooted in animosity toward SpaceX and the political beliefs of its owner Elon Musk, not concern for the coastal zone. After talking at length about concerns with changes in Department of Defense leadership following the November 2024 election, Commission Chair Hart said explicitly: “The concern is with SpaceX increasing its launches, not with the other companies increasing their launches.” She explained, “we’re dealing with a company . . . the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the Presidential race and made it clear what his point of view is.” Other Commissioners similarly made clear their decision was based on political disagreements with Mr. Musk. Commissioner Newsom, for instance, said that “Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking FEMA while claiming his desire to help the hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet.” Commissioners Aguirre and Escalante voiced similar concerns regarding the political uses of Starlink. As these statements show, the impact of the proposed launch cadence increase on the coastal region was the last topic on the Commissioners’ minds at the October 2024 meeting.
96. The Commissioners also raised other concerns wholly unrelated to coastal effects. Commissioner Newsom, for example, spoke at length about SpaceX’s employment practices, citing reports of unlawful retaliation and unsafe working conditions. These same “concerns” regarding SpaceX’s employment practices were later echoed by Commissioners Cummings and Aguirre. Cummings even admitted SpaceX’s labor practices fall outside the Commission’s purview, stating that “[t]here’s certain things that we would love to see that are outside of our purview” before continuing to discuss unnamed reports regarding SpaceX’s supposed labor practices.
97. The Commissioners also repeatedly cited debunked conspiracy theories regarding the use of SpaceX technologies by foreign governments and concerns about Mr. Musk’s motivations for seeking federal contracts. Commissioner Wilson wanted to “acknowledge” that the outcome of the Starlink program will be Mr. Musk having control over “one of the most extensive communications networks on the planet,” and further stated that “just last week” Mr. Musk was “speaking about political retribution on a national stage.” Commissioner Cummings later raised similar concerns about Mr. Musk’s perceived unilateral control over the Starlink system. Cummings stated, “I do share some concerns . . . Commissioner Wilson brought up . . . . [L]ast year we did see the owner of Starlink shut down Starlink when one of our allies was going to attack one of our adversaries. And so while . . . we are all trying to operate in this apolitical space, we do know that the person who controls these companies has enough power to not work in the best interest, when they feel like it, of our allies.” Comments from other Commissioners similarly show that their decision would be based on flawed and inexpert national security concerns rather than concerns within the scope of their state mandate regarding preservation of the coastal zone.
98. No Commissioner, nor any Commission staff, objected to any of these statements. No one pointed out their immateriality to the issues before the Commission. No one stated or argued that animus toward Mr. Musk and/or SpaceX had no place in the Commission’s deliberation, should not affect the Commission’s decision in any way, and/or should be disregarded completely.
The case is headed to federal court.
IANAL, but, if the SpaceX filing is accurate, it seems two things are afoot. First, the California Coastal Commission is illegally trying to extend its authority over civilian space activities, even those in support of US military operations, at Vandenberg Space Force Base and, by extension, over activities at all military facilities on or near the California coast. This is exhibited by the Commission insisting SpaceX file a retroactive CDP for launches that have already taken place. Second, the Commission is making a statement that it can take into account the politics and statements of major shareholders of any company operating in its jurisdiction before approving projects. It is hard to see how this survives its first encounter with the legal system.
READ THE FILING
SpaceX v California Coastal Commision by streiff at redstate on Scribd
