FOREST SERVICE
En banc rehearing denied in Arizona Mining Reform Coalition v. U. S. Forest Service (9th Cir.)
On Sept. 29, the 29-judge circuit court announced that it was refusing to rehear a lawsuit challenging the land exchange with the Forest Service that would allow a copper mine at Oak Flat, which was on the Tonto National Forest. The district court had upheld the decision and the previous 9th Circuit affirmation was discussed here. Ten of the 11 judges who dissented (4 did not take part) took the rare step of publicly calling on the Supreme Court to step into the legal battle over what they said would “obliterate” a site sacred to the Western Apache tribe.
New lawsuit: (N.D. California)
On September 29, the John Muir Society Earth Island Institute, Tule River Conservancy and Sequoia Forestkeeper filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding three logging and vegetation management projects related to fires that had occurred in the Giant Sequoia National Monument and the Sequoia National Forest. According to the plaintiffs:
“Since authorization of the Castle and Windy Projects, and prior to authorization of the Starvation Creek Grove Project, new information has invalidated the Forest Service’s assumptions and highlighted that early seral habitat – the habitat that initially re-emerges post-fire–has significant value to wildlife including to the California condor and Fisher and to the California spotted owl, each of which species the Forest Service wrongly assumed would avoid mid and high severity burn areas. This new information shows that these Species are actively utilizing the post-burn project areas at a high rate.”
New lawsuit: Patagonia Area Resource Alliance v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Arizona)
On September 30, the Patagonia Area Resource Alliance and Center for Biological Diversity challenged the Forest Service approval of actions associated with the Hermosa mining project on the Coronado National Forest. The mine would extract zinc, manganese, lead and silver, and was the first critical minerals project approved using the FAST-41 process established in 2015 to streamline, coordinate, and speed up environmental reviews and authorizations for major infrastructure projects. Most of the facilities are on private land and are largely completed. The agencies’ review found the mine would be likely to adversely affect ten endangered or threatened species, including the jaguar and Mexican spotted owl, and the complaint alleges violations of ESA and NEPA. The article includes a link to the complaint (and a map).
Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Arizona)
On September 30, the district court reversed the decision on the Chiricahua Public Access Project on the Coronado National Forest. The Project aimed to “restore and secure permanent, legal, motorized public access to existing National Forest System roads on Forest Service managed land” with barriers due to intervening private lands. It vacated the Project Decision Notice and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion for jaguars.
The court found that the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion did not include a legally sufficient incidental take statement for jaguars, or employ the best available science. However, it upheld the finding that the Project was not likely to adversely affect Mexican spotted owls. The court also rejected Plaintiffs’ claim that the Forest Service violated Section 7(a)(1) of ESA by allegedly failing to carry out the Jaguar Recovery Plan as part of the proposed Project. According to the court, Defendants successfully counter that “an agency’s obligation under ESA Section 7(a)(1) does not attach to any and all site-specific projects an agency undertakes.” (However, the Forest Service Planning Rule requires forest plans to “contribute to recovery” of listed species, for which recovery plans should be relevant.)
In failing to defend NFMA required compliance with the Forest Plan’s requirements for northern goshawks, the Forest Service argued that the agency is not required to actively demonstrate compliance with NFMA. The court responded, “While it is true that the text of the NFMA does not require the Forest Service to produce a written document explaining why its actions are compliant with an applicable Forest Plan, the agency’s decisionmaking must nonetheless find some support in the record,” Here, the court held, “these highly general statements are not at all sufficient to show compliance with the detailed requirements set forth in the Forest Plan.” The court added in a footnote, “Although the parties do not address the issue, the Court notes that the Code of Federal Regulations does appear to implement just such a requirement. See 36 C.F.R. § 219.15(d) (“A project or activity approval document must describe how the project or activity is consistent with applicable plan components.”).”
The press release includes a link to the opinion.
Court decision in U. S. A. v. Pipkin (D. Colorado)
On September 30, the district court permanently barred a group calling itself the Free Land Holder Committee from fencing off about 1,400 acres of the San Juan National Forest. The property, known as the Hallar Deed Area, was once privately owned through claims under the Homestead Act. The federal government reacquired it in 1927 after owner offered the land in exchange for timber. The Defendants’ claims were based on a capital “T” in that deed, purported native heritage, the Geneva Bible of 1560, the 1774 Articles of Association, the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo with Mexico. The article includes a link to the opinion.
New lawsuit: Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Arizona)
On October 6, The Center for Biological Diversity and Maricopa Bird Alliance filed an Endangered Species Act lawsuit arising from the Forest Service authorizing livestock grazing on six public lands allotments within the upper Verde River watershed on the Prescott National Forest. The Forest Service had settled prior litigation by agreeing to keep cows out of sensitive areas, but recent monitoring by the plaintiffs showed failure to do so. Plaintiffs allege failure to reinitiate required ESA consultation on listed species dependent on riparian habitat, including the western yellow-billed cuckoo, the narrow-headed gartersnake, and the spikedace. The article includes a link to the complaint.
Partial court decision in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. U. S. Forest Service (9th Cir.)
On October 9, the appeals court reversed a lower court decision against the Forest Service regarding one issue in the Hanna Flats Good Neighbor Authority Project on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest. It said the excess road mileage above a 2011 baseline was not caused by the project, but by an undercount of existing roads when the baseline was established. This issue involves road limits in the forest plan to protect grizzly bears outside of their recovery zone. The article includes a link to the opinion. It also mentions another part of this lawsuit, which plaintiffs won in the 9th Circuit, as discussed here.
Case not dismissed in Blue Mountains Diversity Project v. Wilkes (D. Oregon)
On October 9, the district court rejected a magistrate’s findings and recommendation, and declined to dismiss this challenge to the South Warner Habitat Modification Project on the Fremont-Winema National Forest and portions of the 2021 amendment of the Eastside Screens forest plan direction related to snags and green trees. A separate court decision largely vacated the amendment of the Eastside Screens that would have allowed logging of larger trees, but the snag and green tree provisions applicable to this project were not vacated, so these claims against this project and that part of the Eastside Screens amendment may proceed. The article includes a link to the complaint
USDI
Preliminary injunction granted in Friends of the Ruidosa Church v. Mullin (W.D. Texas)
On October 2, the district court issued a preliminary injunction from the bench as follows: “Defendants SHALL NOT build border barrier or related infrastructure, or engage in any construction or ground disturbing activities, in the Big Bend Sector (including Big Bend National Park) until and unless Defendants comply with all applicable laws.” This is notwithstanding the “Big Bend Waivers” of those laws under 1996 border enforcement legislation. The court found that the plaintiffs are likely to win on their claim that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s waiver is unconstitutional. The press release includes a link to the court order.
New lawsuit: Ninemile Canyon Coalition v. Kenczca (D. Utah)
On October 6, the Nine-Mile Canyon Coalition, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit against BLM’s proposal to realign and reconstruct a winding dirt road to provide a more direct route from the oil fields in the Uinta Basin to rail facilities, including a right-of-way through 2.8 miles of BLM lands. The blasting and paving would directly affect Gate Canyon and its “47 historic sites,” and the Project would increase industrial traffic in the connected Nine-Mile Canyon, which the BLM’s website refers to as the “world’s longest art gallery” due to its extensive ancient petroglyphs, Native American panels and Pioneer-era axle-grease inscriptions. The area also includes habitat for the threatened Mexican spotted owl. The BLM’s EA found “no significant impacts.” Plaintiffs allege violations of the ESA, NEPA, FLPMA (conformance to the resource management plan) and the National Historic Preservation Act. They say this latest iteration of a project stopped by opposition twice since 2015 was rushed in an effort to hide it from the public, and that the BLM rejected requests by the public to participate in the process. The article includes a link to the complaint.
Preliminary injunction denied in Malheur Mining Co. v. Idaho Power Co. (D. Oregon)
On October 8, the district court allowed construction to continue on the 293-mile, 500-kilovolt transmission line authorized by the BLM to span from Boardman, Oregon, to Hemingway, Idaho. Plaintiffs claim the power transmission line is being built “straight through the heart” of seven of its gold-deposit mining claims. The court ruled from the bench to reject claims by the mining company, stating, “The stronger public interest is in the power lines being built – a determination made by the federal government that it is something that’s needed.” It encouraged continued settlement negotiations, including a possible alternative route.
New lawsuit: New Mexico Wildlife Federation v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. New Mexico)
On October 8, the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, Battalion Search and Rescue, and Southern Border Communities Coalition sued USDI and the Department of Defense for transferring a 170-mile strip of land along the southern border known as the Roosevelt Reservation from the BLM to the Department of Defense. The lawsuit says this is illegally restricting access to thousands of acres of public land. The plaintiffs are arguing that the Department of the Interior lacked authority to transfer public land to the Department of Defense and that four-year funding to maintain the zone — made under the 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — violates the Constitution’s two-year limit on Army appropriations. The article includes a link to the complaint.
Intervention as defendants in Western Energy Alliance v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Wyoming)
On October 15, the Western Watersheds Project and Center for Biological Diversity filed motions to intervene in, and dismiss, this lawsuit that asks a court to affirm the Trump administration’s latest greater sage grouse management plan for Wyoming. They assert the plaintiffs in the case do not allege that the Bureau of Land Management broke the law, but rather they seek, in part, a confirmation by a court that the BLM complied with the law when it removed habitat protections, which the U.S. Constitution does not permit. The movants suspect this is a “cover for a settlement with the Trump administration to shield the administration’s sage grouse plans from lawsuits seeking to overturn them.” The motions are linked to this press release.
Preliminary injunction granted in Oregon Wild Horse Organization v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Oregon)
On October 15, the district court blocked an emergency roundup that would have removed the entire Riddle Mountain wild horse herd from its Herd Management Area, confine them to holding pens for at least two years, and then return a maximum of 33 wild horses to their original habitats. The BLM argued that this was necessary because of reduced forage following a fire. The judge indicated that the Appropriate Management Level, a BLM population target set by the agency to limit wild horse numbers, was never set according to site-specific analysis. The judge identified concerns that the agency decided to remove the horses before it conducted an Environmental Assessment. And the judge ruled that there were serious questions regarding whether the agency took a “hard look” at the genetic implications of the roundup. The plaintiffs sought and obtained an injunction that accepted removal of horses in excess of 278 individuals, based on the current academic literature submitted by plaintiffs showing a minimum population of 278 horses is necessary for the Riddle Mountain wild horse population to be genetically viable. The opinion/order is here.
ENDANGERED SPECIES
New lawsuit: Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. D.C.)
On October 15, the Center sued the Fish Wildlife Service pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act for failing to respond to its August 27 request for information about how the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Interior Department are handling the “incidental take” of endangered and threatened species in light of the Service’s recent directive that rescinds the regulatory definition of “harm.” The Center has also requested an official copy of a Service memorandum that adopted this new policy but has not been made public. The press release includes a link to this complaint. Plaintiffs here have also sued to challenge the regulatory change based on this memorandum.
OTHER
New lawsuit
On September 22, two owners of private property along a Forest Service road filed a lawsuit against Chaffee County claiming the road is county-owned, contrary to a letter from the county to the Pike-San Isabel National Forest. That letter was a consideration in a travel management decision to install a seasonal gate on the road to protect the road (and snowmobile route) during spring conditions. The lawsuit alleges that the county failed to take the proper steps to vacate or abandon the road and failed to do the appropriate due diligence to understand the ownership of the road.
New lawsuit: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. U. S. Forest Service (D. D.C.)
On September 30, PEER filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service seeking release of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that the agency has required employees to sign. The suit, filed under the Freedom of Information Act, comes after the Forest Service missed its statutory deadline to respond to a PEER records request and has continued to withhold the documents. The Trump administration also proposed in May 2026 to create government-wide NDAs for most federal employees. PEER has called on the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to withdraw this proposal, warning that it is illegal, built on false premises, and designed to silence career civil servants. The press release includes a link to the complaint.
Stay granted in American Federation of Government Employees v. USDA (N.D. California)
On October 13, the district court ordered the Forest Service to be “enjoined and stayed from (a) closing or eliminating offices or (b) relocating or reassigning employees or their positions or functions to different and/or new locations outside the local commuting area, including by issuing or enforcing MDR letters or any other notice or directive of reassignment or relocation in whole or in part, including any deadlines in those letters at the Forest Service.” The paragraphs below were taken largely verbatim from this article (which includes a link to the opinion), a source that appears knowledgeable about administrative law (my knowledge of appropriations law consists of Forest Service training maybe 30 years ago). (We have also discussed this here.)
The court examined whether USDA’s proposed expenditures for these purposes constituted prohibited reprogramming, meaning using funds within an appropriation account for purposes Congress did not contemplate when it appropriated them…
The evidence strongly indicated that the proposed closures and relocations qualified as reprogramming. Congressional explanatory statements did not identify reorganizations as anticipated expenditures, while several USDA communications acknowledged that the changes would require reprogramming or transfers… The court concluded that Congress almost certainly had not contemplated financing the challenged activities. USDA’s expenditures therefore triggered the appropriations restrictions…
The Forest Service provision independently supported the unions’ position. Its definition of reprogramming covered organizational restructuring and workforce actions affecting at least 10 employees or 10 percent of an office’s staffing, whichever was less. The proposed changes exceeded that threshold.
The reorganization violates Section 716 of the Agriculture appropriations act and Section 421 of the Interior appropriations act (Forest Service). These congressional spending restrictions underpinning the decision are scheduled to expire December 11. Congress could extend those restrictions, change them, or allow them to lapse. The lawsuit itself remains pending. (However, there may be a mootness question if the restrictions lapse.)
Here’s some more info on the constitutional issue raised in the Big Bend border wall litigation:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/10/trump-administration-asks-justices-to-allow-border-wall-construction-to-continue/#:~:text=Cardone%20issued%20a,Big%20Bend%20waivers.
It’s a bit complicated, but the issue involves the “major questions doctrine,” a sort of modern day nondelegation doctrine. The judge held that Congress, in the relevant immigration statute, could not have delegated waiver authority to DHS that was so sweeping as to authorize the waivers at issue in the case. Congress could only have accomplished this by stating it unequivocally in the law, which it did not do.