• Skip to main content
  • Home
  • Contact
  • About
  • Search
    • Search US
    • Search Global
  • Global Litigation
  • U.S. Litigation

Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of the Interior

Filing Date: 2022
Case Categories:
  • Federal Statutory Claims
    • Endangered Species Act and Other Wildlife Protection Statutes
  • Federal Statutory Claims
    • NEPA
  • Federal Statutory Claims
    • Other Statutes and Regulations
Principal Laws:
Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
Description: Challenge to approval of at least 3,535 applications for permit to drill (APDs) for oil and gas in the Permian Basin in New Mexico and in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.
  • Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of the Interior
    Docket number(s): 1:22-cv-01716
    Court/Admin Entity: D.D.C.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    06/15/2022 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Conservation Groups Challenged Approval of Applications for Permit to Drill in Permian and Powder River Basins. Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia challenging approval of at least 3,535 applications for permit to drill (APDs) for oil and gas in the Permian Basin in New Mexico and in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. The plaintiffs asserted climate change-related violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). Under NEPA, the plaintiffs alleged a failure to take a hard look at cumulative greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting climate impacts and to use available tools for assessing the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from production and combustion of mineral resources authorized by the APDs. They also alleged a failure to consider environmental justice implications of increased greenhouse gas emissions and cumulative climate impacts. Under the Endangered Species Act, the plaintiffs asserted a failure to consult and reinitiate consultation on climate-threatened species. Under FLPMA, they asserted a failure to “take action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation in the context of climate impacts.”

© 2022 · Sabin Center for Climate Change Law · U.S. Litigation Chart made in collaboration with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

The materials on this website are intended to provide a general summary of the law and do not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.