Description: Challenge to BLM's repeal of 2015 regulations governing hydraulic fracturing on federal and tribal lands.
-
California v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 08/16/2021 Order Download Administrative closure period extended until November 15, 2021. 02/10/2021 Reply Download Reply brief filed by State of California. 10/28/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amicus curiae Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law in support of plaintiffs-appellants and reversal. 10/21/2020 Brief Download Opening brief filed by California. 10/21/2020 Brief Download Opening brief filed by Sierra Club et al. -
California v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/27/2020 Order Download Defendants' motion for summary judgment granted. Federal Court Upheld Repeal of Obama-Era Rule for Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Tribal Lands. The federal district court for the Northern District of California ruled that the Trump administration’s repeal of a rule promulgated by the Obama administration in 2015 regulating hydraulic fracturing on federal and tribal lands did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), or the Endangered Species Act (ESA). As a threshold matter, the court found that California had standing for all its claims and that Citizen Group Plaintiffs had standing for claims under the ESA and NEPA but not under the APA. On the merits, the court concluded that the change in policy was not arbitrary and capricious under the APA, finding that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) “reasoned explanation” of the change “did enough to clear the low bar of arbitrary and capricious review.” The court was not persuaded by California’s critiques of the reversal, which included two main arguments: that BLM’s determination that the 2015 rule was duplicative of state and tribal regulation was negated by BLM’s earlier conclusions and that BLM ignored forgone benefits of the Obama-era rule in its cost-benefit analysis. The court declined to address the issue of whether BLM had authority to issue the 2015 rule. The court also agreed with the defendants that NEPA did not apply since the 2015 rule was never in effect and the “environmental status quo” therefore was not altered. (California’s NEPA claim was based in part on the defendants’ failure to consider potential significant adverse environmental impacts, including climate change harms.) Regarding the ESA, the court found that there was a “rational connection” between BLM’s “final position” that the repeal would have no effect on threatened species on BLM lands and the facts in the record. 08/02/2019 Motion for Summary Judgment Download Cross motion for summary judgment filed by federal defendants. 06/03/2019 Motion for Summary Judgment Download Motion for summary judgment filed by state plaintiffs. 04/02/2019 Order Download Plaintiffs' motions to complete and/or supplement the administrative record granted in part and denied in part. 07/17/2018 Order Download Order issued denying motion to transfer and granting motions to intervene. Challenge to Repeal of BLM Hydraulic Fracturing Rule Will Stay in California Federal Court. The federal district court for the Northern District of California denied the federal government’s motion to transfer lawsuits challenging BLM’s repeal of 2015 regulations governing hydraulic fracturing on federal and tribal lands. The federal defendants sought to transfer the lawsuits to the District of Wyoming, where a judge heard challenges to the 2015 regulations and ultimately vacated the regulations as outside BLM’s authority. (The Tenth Circuit vacated that holding in 2017.) The California federal court concluded that although the lawsuits could have been brought in Wyoming, the balance of the transfer factors weighed against transfer. The court was not persuaded that there was a risk of judicial inconsistency or that judicial economy weighed strongly in favor of transfer. The court said that “[t]hough there are some broadly related factual subject matter areas underlying the [hydraulic fracturing] Rule and the rule rescinding it, these commonalities are unlikely to save either court considerable time.” On the other hand, plaintiffs’ choice of forum and convenience weighed against transfer. The court also granted two motions to intervene, one by the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Western Energy Alliance, and the other by the American Petroleum Institute. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ request that the intervenors be limited to filing one joint brief. 06/18/2018 Statement Download Statement of recent decision filed by California. On June 18, California notified the district court in the Northern District of California of two district court decisions—one in New York and the other in South Carolina—denying motions to transfer challenges to the Waters of the United States rule to other venues. The federal defendants in the challenge to the hydraulic fracturing rule moved in March 2018 to transfer the challenges to the District of Wyoming. 06/04/2018 Statement Download Statement of recent decision filed by federal defendants. In Challenges to Repeal of BLM Hydraulic Fracturing Rule, Parties Keep Court Apprised of Recent Court Decisions. In the federal lawsuits in the Northern District of California challenging BLM’s repeal of the regulations governing hydraulic fracturing on federal and tribal lands, the federal defendants and California (one of the plaintiffs) each filed a notice to inform the court of recent relevant decisions in other courts. On June 4, 2018, the federal defendants notified the court of the Tenth Circuit’s denial of motions to dismiss as moot the appeals of the District of Wyoming’s 2015 decision invalidating the hydraulic fracturing rule. In September 2017, the Tenth Circuit found that the appeals were prudentially unripe because BLM was in the process of rescinding the rule. The Tenth Circuit therefore dismissed the appeals and also directed that the District of Wyoming’s 2015 decision be vacated. After BLM finalized the regulations’ repeal in December 2017 and before the Tenth Circuit’s mandate issued, North Dakota and the Ute Indian Tribe moved to have the appeals dismissed as moot to revive the District of Wyoming’s decision. The Tenth Court denied those motions. 05/02/2018 Order Download Wyoming motion to intervene granted. 03/30/2018 Motion to Intervene Download Motion to intervene filed by American Petroleum Institute. 03/21/2018 Motion Download Motion filed by defendants to transfer to District of Wyoming. 02/22/2018 Motion to Intervene Download Motion to intervene on behalf of defendants filed by Independent Petroleum Association of America and Western Energy Alliance. 01/24/2018 Complaint Download Complaint filed. California Challenged BLM’s Repeal of Hydraulic Fracturing Regulations. On January 24, 2018, California filed an action in the federal district court for the Northern District of California challenging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) decision to repeal 2015 regulations that govern hydraulic fracturing on federal and tribal lands. California’s complaint alleged that BLM’s repeal of the regulations violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and several federal land management statutes (Mineral Leasing Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and Indian Mineral Leasing Act). California’s NEPA claim was based in part on the defendants’ failure to consider potential significant adverse environmental impacts, including climate change harms. -
Sierra Club v. Zinke
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 01/24/2018 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Environmental Groups Challenged BLM’s Repeal of Hydraulic Fracturing Regulations. On January 24, 2018, eight environmental groups filed an action in the federal district court for the Northern District of California challenging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) decision to repeal 2015 regulations that govern hydraulic fracturing on federal and tribal lands. The environmental groups’ complaint alleged that BLM’s repeal of the regulations violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and several federal land management statutes (Mineral Leasing Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and Indian Mineral Leasing Act).