American Farm Bureau Federation v. U.S. Department of the Interior

Three lawsuits were filed in three different federal district courts challenging BLM’s “Conservation and Landscape Health” rule. The State of Alaska filed a <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/alaska-v-haaland/">lawsuit</a> in the District of Alaska; the States of Utah and Wyoming filed a <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/utah-v-haaland/">lawsuit</a> in the District of Utah; and trade associations filed a lawsuit in the District of Wyoming. North Dakota, Idaho, and Montana also filed a <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/north-dakota-v-us-department-of-interior/">lawsuit</a> in the District of North Dakota. The trade associations’ complaint asserted that the rule exceeded BLM’s authority under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, that BLM acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and that BLM did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act’s procedural requirements. The trade associations’ claims include assertions that the Congressional Review Act barred the rule, based on Congress’s rejection of the 2016 Planning 2.0 Rule, and that the rule violated NEPA. The complaint mentioned BLM’s citing of climate change’s adverse impacts on public lands as a rationale for the rule and alleged that BLM did not explain why existing tools were inadequate to address climate change’s threats. The complaint stated that “the Supreme Court has held that ‘climate change,’ however legitimate a concern, does not excuse unlawful rulemakings.”

–