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

Washington v. Bernhardt

Filing Date: 2020
Case Categories:
  • Federal Statutory Claims
    • NEPA
  • Federal Statutory Claims
    • Other Statutes and Regulations
Principal Laws:
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Description: Lawsuit challenging federal defendants’ approval of an oil and gas leasing program on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  • Washington v. Bernhardt
    Docket number(s): 3:20-cv-00224
    Court/Admin Entity: D. Alaska
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    02/12/2021 Order Stay motion granted. The federal district court for the District of Alaska granted federal defendants’ request for a stay of proceedings in the lawsuits challenging the approval of an oil and gas leasing program on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The parties must file status reports by April 12, 2021 advising the court about what further proceedings may be necessary.
    02/09/2021 Motion Download Unopposed motion to stay proceedings filed by defendants.
    09/09/2020 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Lawsuit Challenged Oil and Gas Leasing Program in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Fifteen states filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Alaska challenging federal defendants’ approval of an oil and gas leasing program on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The plaintiffs asserted claims under the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The states alleged that the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts was inadequate because it “drastically” underestimated the leasing program’s indirect greenhouse gas emissions, failed to quantify costs from greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and failed to meaningfully analyze climate impacts of methane emissions or cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions.

© 2023 · 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.