The California Coastal Commission has requested that a judge dismiss the lawsuit filed by SpaceX, the aerospace company led by Elon Musk, which accuses the agency of political bias. The lawsuit centers on the commission’s October decision to vote against SpaceX’s request for approval to increase the number of rocket launches at Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara, California.
In a filing submitted to the federal court in Los Angeles on Tuesday, the commission argued that SpaceX had not demonstrated how the vote harmed the company. This is because the U.S. Air Force, which manages the base, had already expressed its intention to move forward with the additional launches despite the commission’s objection.
“The Air Force had the final say on whether to proceed with the project, and it chose to do so,” said attorneys for the commission from the California Attorney General’s office. A hearing is set for March to further address the case.
SpaceX, which has been launching Falcon 9 rockets from Vandenberg since 2013, claims that the commission’s decision was not based on environmental concerns but was instead influenced by disapproval of Musk’s political views. The company seeks a court order to limit the commission’s authority over its launch operations at the base.
The commission, responsible for overseeing land and water use along California’s coast, maintains that it did not impose new regulatory hurdles on SpaceX. Instead, the vote simply rejected the Air Force’s conclusion that additional launches aligned with the state’s coastal policies.
The lawsuit, filed in October, follows statements from individual commission members criticizing Musk’s political actions. One commissioner had previously accused Musk of “spreading political falsehoods.” Musk, a known supporter of former President Donald Trump, has also become a key advisor to the president-elect, raising questions about the motivations behind the commission’s decision.
The case, titled Space Exploration Technologies Corp v. California Coastal Commission, is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, under case number 2:24-cv-08893-SB-SK.
Read more: