Description: Challenge to amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act regulations.
-
Wild Virginia v. Council on Environmental Quality
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 12/22/2022 Opinion Download Dismissal affirmed. Fourth Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Environmental Groups’ Challenge to Trump Administration NEPA Regulations. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of environmental groups’ lawsuit challenging the 2020 amendments to the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. The Fourth Circuit found that challenges regarding direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, and reasonable alternatives to the extent they were required to prioritize applicants’ goals were moot due to CEQ’s adoption in 2022 of a rule that returned the regulatory language related to these issues to essentially what was in place prior to the 2020 rule. The Fourth Circuit further concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert claims related to the 2020 rule’s requirements for public comments and that the plaintiffs’ remaining claims were not ripe. 01/25/2022 Brief Download Answering brief filed by intervenors-appellees American Farm Bureau Federation et al. 01/18/2022 Brief Download Answering brief filed by defendants-appellees. 10/20/2021 Brief Download Opening brief filed by plaintiffs-appellants. -
Wild Virginia v. Council on Environmental Quality
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 07/30/2021 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed. Environmental Groups Appealed Dismissal of NEPA Regulations Lawsuit. Environmental groups filed a notice of appeal of the order of the federal district court for the Western District of Virginia dismissing their lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s amendment of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations implementing NEPA. The district court held that the plaintiffs did not have standing and that their claims were not ripe. 06/21/2021 Opinion Download Case dismissed without prejudice. Virginia Federal Court Said Challenge to NEPA Regulations Was Not Justiciable. The federal district court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed without prejudice a lawsuit brought by environmental groups to challenge the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) 2020 amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. The court concluded that the groups’ claims were not justiciable both because the claims were not ripe and because the groups did not have standing. With respect to ripeness, the court found that “[t]he potential applications and outcomes of the regulatory changes adopted are simply too attenuated and speculative to allow for a full understanding and consideration of how they may impact the plaintiffs.” The court noted that each federal agency would have to adopt its own NEPA procedures before CEQ’s regulatory amendments could be applied to any particular federal action, and further noted that following the change in administrations, CEQ was “actively reconsidering” the 2020 amendments and had directed agencies not to use resources to develop their own procedures. With respect to standing, the court found that the environmental groups’ alleged environmental, procedural, and information injuries were too speculative to satisfy the constitutional injury-in-fact requirement. 06/21/2021 Order Download Case dismissed without prejudice and motions for summary judgment and defendants' motion for remand without vacatur terminated as moot. 03/25/2021 Opposition Download Opposition filed by plaintiffs to federal defendants' motion for remand without vacatur. 03/17/2021 Motion Download Motion for remand without vacatur filed by defendants. 03/17/2021 Reply Download Reply filed by business associations in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment. 02/19/2021 Motion Download Defendants' motion for stay of case denied. The federal district court for the Western District of Virginia denied the defendants’ request for a 60-day stay to allow the Biden-Harris administration time to review challenged amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. The court noted that briefing on summary judgment motions was nearly complete and found that adding delay to the court’s decision on the pending motions would not be appropriate. 09/21/2020 Order Download Plaintiffs' motion for status conference denied, defendants' and defendant-intervenors' motions to dismiss denied, and defendants' proposed schedule adopted. Court Denied Motions to Dismiss Challenge to Amended NEPA Regulations. The court denied the defendants' and defendant-intervenors' motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The court also clarified that discovery was not contemplated but that summary judgment motions might be supported by expert declarations or other interpretive opinion. 09/17/2020 Motion Download Motion for status conference filed by plaintiffs. 09/17/2020 Response Download Response filed by defendants' to plaintiffs' motion for a status conference. 09/11/2020 Opinion and Order Download Motion for preliminary injunction denied. Federal Court in Virginia Declined to Issue Preliminary Injunction in Challenge to CEQ Amendments to NEPA Regulations. The federal district court for the Western District of Virginia denied a motion for preliminary injunction or stay barring the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations from taking effect. The court concluded that while the plaintiffs “may ultimately succeed,” at this point they had not made the necessary “clear showing” that they were likely to succeed. The court indicated it was “not unlikely that interpretative testimony and expert opinion would be required for the proper determination of the validity” of the amendments. The court also said the jurisdictional standing and ripeness issues raised by the defendants “may very well require evidence.” The court also cited the Fourth Circuit’s statement that issuance of a nationwide preliminary injunction should be limited “to the most exceptional circumstances.” The court subsequently clarified that discovery was not contemplated but that summary judgment motions might be supported by expert declarations or other interpretive opinion. 09/09/2020 Reply Download Reply filed by Business Associations in support of their motion to dismiss. 09/09/2020 Reply Download Reply filed by defendants in support of motion to dismiss. 09/09/2020 Reply Download Reply filed by plaintiffs in support of motion for preliminary injunction or stay. 09/08/2020 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by Southern Ute Indian Tribe in support of respondents. 09/02/2020 Response Download Response filed by plaintiffs in opposition to defendants' and defendant-intervenors' motions to dismiss. 08/26/2020 Motion to Dismiss Download Brief filed by defendants in support of motion to dismiss. 08/25/2020 Motion to Dismiss Download Brief filed in support of Business Associations' motion to dismiss. 08/21/2020 Motion to Intervene Download Brief filed in support of Business Associations' motion to intervene as defendants. 08/21/2020 Order Download Court issued order establishing briefing format and schedule. 08/20/2020 Reply Download Plaintiffs filed reply in support of motion for expedited briefing and response in opposition to defendants' motion for extension of time. 08/19/2020 Opposition Download Defendants filed opposition to plaintiffs' motion for expedited briefing and motion for extension of time. 08/18/2020 Motion Download Memorandum filed in support of motion for preliminary injunction or stay; expedited briefing requested. 07/29/2020 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Challenge to Amended NEPA Regulations Raised Climate Change Concerns. Environmental groups filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Western District of Virginia challenging the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. The plaintiffs asserted 10 claims for relief under the Administrative Procedure Act. The claims included that CEQ arbitrarily and capriciously reversed policy positions, including requirements for consideration of indirect and cumulative impacts. The plaintiffs also asserted that CEQ failed to respond to relevant and significant comments, including comments that eliminating consideration of climate change would lead to wasteful spending and poor decision-making. They also alleged that CEQ failed to consider alternative approaches that would adequately protect the climate, failed to demonstrate that the amended rules were consistent with NEPA, and made changes that were outside CEQ’s authority.