The key finding (at p. 3) was that the government was misleading in claiming that all experts agreed that the moratorium was necessary (emphasis mine):
Much to the government’s discomfort and this Court’s uneasiness, the Summary also states that “the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.” As the plaintiffs, and the experts themselves, pointedly observe, this statement was misleading. The experts charge it was a “misrepresentation.” It was factually incorrect. Although the experts agreed with the safety recommendations contained in the body of the main Report, five of the National Academy experts and three of the other experts have publicly stated that they “do not agree with the six month blanket moratorium” on floating drilling. They envisioned a more limited kind of moratorium, but a blanket moratorium was added after their final review, they complain, and was never agreed to by them.
Gulf Oil Spill; Drilling Moratorium Decision (Hornbeck v. Salazar CA 10-1663) http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf