Federal Lands Litigation – update through February 7, 2026

The BLM has kept me busy …

FOREST SERVICE

• USDA NEPA rules

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Department of Agriculture (N.D. California)

On January 28, the Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club sued the USDA, Forest Service and APHIS over the Department’s July 2025 “interim final rule” establishing revised procedures for NEPA compliance.  They claim the government “provided no explanation for USDA’s major changes to its longstanding public participation procedures.”  The rule responded to the executive order “Unleashing American Energy,” and eliminated requirements for public participation for scoping and EISs.  Plaintiffs allege this violates the APA and NEPA.  They also challenge, under the APA, the lack of any opportunity for the public to participate in the rule’s development before it became effective.  The article has a link to the complaint.

• Tonto NF illegal livestock grazing

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. Schultz (D. Arizona)

On February 3, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Maricopa Bird Alliance filed an Endangered Species Act lawsuit to force the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reduce or eliminate cattle grazing on 122 miles of waterways in 25 grazing allotments on the Tonto National Forest.  The lawsuit cites the “ongoing failure to adequately protect and conserve eight listed species and their critical habitat on the Tonto National Forest: the endangered Gila chub, spikedace, razorback sucker, and the southwestern 1 willow flycatcher (“flycatcher”); and the threatened yellow-billed cuckoo (“cuckoo”), Chiricahua leopard frog (“frog”), northern Mexican gartersnake, and narrow-headed gartersnake.”   The complaint cites improper consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service on recent allotment decisions and failure to reinitiate consultation on ongoing grazing activities, and may be found here.

BLM

• California BLM OHV plan

Court remedy in Center for Biological Diversity v. Culver (N.D. California)

On January 23, the district court prohibited off-road vehicle use in critical habitat for desert tortoises in California’s western Mojave Desert.  The court order vacated BLM’s travel management plan as it applied to the critical habitat, and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s biological opinion – the order is linked to the article.  This court had previously determined the plan violated FLPMA because “BLM (1) failed to explain and demonstrate how the 2019 OHV Route Network minimizes impacts to the desert tortoise and Lane Mountain milkvetch …, and (2) improperly relied on optional mitigation measures in addressing FLPMA’s minimization obligations.”  The court had also found a violation of ESA.  That decision was discussed here. 

• Utah BLM travel management plan

New lawsuit:  State of Utah v. Burgum (D. Utah)

On January 27, the Utah Attorney General and two Utah counties sued the Bureau of Land Management, alleging violations of FLPMA and NEPA when it adopted the Henry Mountains and Fremont Gorge travel management plan in January, 2025.  The plan is a response to a 2017 settlement agreement, and it would close 612 miles of routes to motorized use and restrict motorized access elsewhere.  Another lawsuit by the BlueRibbon Coalition was discussed here.

• Alaska BLM oil and gas exploration

Preliminary injunction denied in Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic v. Burgum (D. Alaska)

On January 27, the district court denied a request for a preliminary injunction in this case (discussed here) involving ConocoPhillips Alaska Incorporated’s winter seismic and exploration drilling program in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, including within the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area.  The court found that plaintiffs would be unlikely to prevail on the merits under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act because “BLM conducted a reasonably thorough analysis of the impacts of the Winter Program on tundra in the project area on various types of vegetation,” and found “expected impacts to vegetation would be minor and would be further minimized through applicable mitigation measures.”  The court noted “deference owed to BLM in selecting mitigation measures it deems are necessary or appropriate.”

• Alaska BLM right-of-way

New lawsuit:  Nuiqsut Trilateral, Inc. v. Burgum (D. D.C.)

On January 28, plaintiff filed a lawsuit to stop the BLM from terminating a right-of-way agreement they had made at the end of 2024 to mitigate the effects of the Willow project, approved in 2023. One condition of that decision was mitigating the project’s effects on Teshekpuk Lake and its caribou herd.  The agreement to protect about a million acres around the lake was with Nuiqsut Trilateral, a nonprofit organization comprising the city and village of Nuiqsut along with the village’s Kuukpik Corp.  The BLM now says the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act does not authorize rights‑of‑way intended to restrict oil and gas activity, and terminated the agreement because it considers subsistence uses to be “non-use.”  The complaint alleges violations of the APA and the 5^th Amendment to the Constitution.  The article includes links to these documents.

• Energy “emergency”

Amended complaint in State of Washington v. Trump (W.D. Washington)

On January 30, the 17 state plaintiffs amended their May 2025 complaint challenging President Trump’s “National Energy Emergency” to add the U.S Department of the Interior as a defendant, accusing the department of illegally bypassing requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act when permitting fossil fuel projects.  The article links to a press release that includes a link to the complaint.  Colorado also joined the lawsuit, and according to the Colorado attorney general, “Congress passed the National Emergencies Act to prevent presidents from declaring national emergencies for pointless or partisan purposes — exactly what the president has done with this executive order.”

• Utah BLM highway right of way

New lawsuit:  Conserve Southwest Utah v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. D.C.)

On February 4, six conservation organizations filed a complaint against the BLM decision in January to approve a four-lane, 4.5-mile highway through the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area to meet the needs of nearby St. George.  This decision reversed a 2024 Biden Administration decision, which had revoked a prior decision by the first Trump Administration (part of settlement of a prior lawsuit).  That revocation was reportedly made because the ROW’s potential environmental impact was ‘inconsistent’ with legal direction for management of the NCA.  The current decision allegedly violates statutes specific to this area and NEPA, as well as the ESA (the Fish and Wildlife Service is also a defendant) because of effects on threatened Mojave Desert tortoises.  The article includes a link to the complaint, and a map.

• California BLM mine

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Management (C.D. California)

On February 4, The Center for Biological Diversity and the Amargosa Conservancy joined the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe in suing the BLM to stop St. Cloud Mining from drilling near Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge.  It is also near populations of three plants protected under the Endangered Species Act — the Amargosa niterwort, Ash Meadows gumplant and spring-loving centaury.  The complaint, appended to the article, alleges that BLM failed to consult with the Fish and Wildlife on a decision that may affect these plants.

• Utah BLM national monument road paving

New lawsuit:  Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Garfield County, Utah (D. Utah)

On February 5, plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and injunction to stop a Utah county from paving a road through the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.  While the country recently obtained control over the road through litigation under RS 2477 (which gave local governments the right to roads across federal lands in some cases), plaintiffs assert that there is a requirement to consult with the BLM, which has not been met.  The article includes a link to the motion

ENDANGERED SPECIES

• ESA regulations FOIA

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Department of Commerce (D. D.C.)

On January 28, the Center sought to compel release of records related to the Trump Administration’s proposed changes in Endangered Species Act implementing regulations.  The records were requested in July and again in December after the release of the regulations in November, 2025.  The regulations would make these key changes, mostly to the Section 4 listing process:

• eliminate the “blanket” protections for threatened species
• allow for economic and other considerations and limit the foreseeable future analysis for threatened species determinations
• provide a process for excluding areas from critical habitat designations, allowing consideration of economic, national security and other relevant impacts
• prioritize designation of critical habitat in areas actually occupied by the species
• limit the scope of review in the Section 7 consultation process

The complaint is here.

OTHER

• MMS programmatic EAs

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum (D. D.C.)

On January 23, the district court found that two programmatic environmental assessments by the Minerals Management Service on decommissioning structures in the waters off the Gulf Coast did not need to be updated.  Plaintiff sought documentation of “environmental impacts of delayed decommissioning and extensive approval of decommissioning in place” pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act’s ability to compel “agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.”  The court held that plaintiffs did not identify any “ongoing major Federal action that could require supplementa[l]” NEPA analysis because programmatic decisions are complete when they are adopted.  This is the same reasoning applied to land management plan decisions by the Supreme Court.   The court also found it to be an “impermissible programmatic challenge.” The court was not referring to agency programmatic decisions, but to plaintiffs “lumping together ‘many individual actions’ into one ‘program’ and seeking ‘wholesale correction under the APA.’  Plaintiff’s complaint may be found linked to this news release.

• DOT/FHA policy change

Court decision in State of Washington v. U. S. Department of Transportation (W.D. Washington)

On January 23, the district court reversed the Trump Administration’s abrupt stoppage of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (“NEVI”) Formula Program, withholding about $1 billion, to purportedly align it with the Administration’s new policies.  The court said: “Such capriciousness runs counter to the Administrative Procedure Act; it is simply not how things are lawfully done.” The purpose of the program was to facilitate nationwide deployment of electric vehicle charging infrastructure and improve charging reliability for the public, and the states were following a well-define process to obtain the funds, including state plans, which were revoked.  Several environmental groups intervened as plaintiffs.  Among other flaws, the court reasoned the decision to withhold funds was arbitrary and capricious because:

“Time and again, Defendants assert in their motion that they “acknowledged,” “concluded” (three times), and “determined” various things prior to implementing the funding freeze. But beyond these bare assertions, they provide no evidence of such informed decision making.

The news release includes a link to the court’s order.  (This might be a template for judicial review of other attempts to reverse decisions of prior administrations.)

• Climate science FACA violation

Court decision in Environmental Defense Fund v. Wright (D. Massachusetts)

On January 30, the district court ruled that the U.S. Department of Energy violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act when it employed a group of researchers to produce a report that downplays the effects of climate change: “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.”  The five members of the group are John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick and Roy Spencer, “scientists and researchers who question prevailing climate science and policy.”  The DOE did not deny that the group had met 18 times without complying with FACA, and the court held that this violated FACA because the group provided substantive advice to the government agency.  However, the court also found that DOE had now provided the relevant records, which “remedied the informational deficiency” under FACA, and denied Plaintiffs’ request to prevent the agency from using the report or keeping it online.  The article includes a link to the decision.