Legal Insurrection readers may recall that when I covered the national celebration over the SpaceX booster catch, I noted that the California Coastal Commission denied launch permits to the company because commission members are unhappy with CEO Elon Musk’s comments on “X.”
Musk was angered at this direct attack on his free speech rights and subsequently sued.
Now, this gaggle of California regulators has been forced to apologize to Musk after settling a lawsuit claiming the state agency was politically biased against the rocket company and its chief executive.
As part of the settlement, the California Coastal Commission acknowledged its members made “improper” statements about Musk’s political beliefs at a 2024 hearing on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launch program.“The commission agrees that it may not consider irrelevant factors in performing its function and specifically agrees that it will not take into account the perceived political beliefs, political speech or labor practices of SpaceX or its officers in considering any regulatory action concerning SpaceX,” the commission said in federal court documents filed Tuesday.SpaceX had sued the commission over its opposition to expanding the launch schedule for Falcon 9 rockets from the Vandenberg Space Force Base on the Southern California coast near Santa Barbara.
SpaceX alleged in its complaint that the commission engaged in blatant political discrimination by refusing to follow the U.S. Air Force’s recommendation to raise the number of launches at the base north of Santa Barbara from 35 to 50.
Citing comments the commissioners made at the Oct. 10 public hearing, where they voted 6-4 against the Air Force’s proposal, SpaceX claims the decision was based on their dislike of Musk’s outspoken political views and, as such, was in violation of the right to free speech and due process enshrined in the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.As part of the settlement, the commission also acknowledged it can’t require a coastal development permit for an expanded launch schedule that has been sanctioned as consistent with the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act by the federal authorities in charge of the base.The commission’s approval or disapproval of an expanded launch schedule for SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets at Vandenberg, which at the time was from 36 to 50 a year, is somewhat moot.The coastal commission in October of 2024 voted against the U.S. Air Force’s finding that the increased launch schedule was consistent with California’s coastal management program. The Air Force, as allowed by federal law, disregarded the commission’s objection and proceeded with the expanded schedule anyway.
As a reminder, these are the comments that led to the lawsuit and provide insight into the kind of thinking these regulators use when considering what is best for the California coast.
Citing a reason for their rejection, Commission Chair Caryl Hart stated, “We’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race.”Commissioner Gretchen Newsom added, “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 Mike Wilson piled on the anti-Musk commentary, saying of SpaceX, “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. Just last week that person was talking about political retribution.”
The SpaceX settlement is more than a personal vindication for Musk; it is a rare and pointed rebuke of California’s activist regulators, who openly weaponized their hostility to his politics and were forced to back down when dragged into a courtroom.
By apologizing for “improper” statements and pledging not to factor in “perceived political beliefs” or speech in future decisions, the California Coastal Commission effectively conceded what many of us have long suspected: its gatekeeping power over our shores has been distorted by ideological crusading rather than grounded in law, science, or the genuine interests of Californians.
Personally, I am looking forward to more launches from Vanderberg and, hopefully, more circumspection from state bureaucrats who oversee matters important to Californians and the rest of the nation. I have a good shot of getting about 50% of this ask.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY