- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Atchafalaya Basinkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Atchafalaya Basinkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Atchafalaya Basinkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ↗
18-30257United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (5th Cir.), United States Federal Courts5 entries
Filing Date
Document
Type
07/06/2018
Preliminary injunction vacated.
In a split decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary injunction issued by a district court in Louisiana that temporarily halted construction of an oil pipeline through the Atchafalaya Basin. In March, the Fifth Circuit stayed the preliminary injunction. In the majority opinion vacating the injunction, the Fifth Circuit said the district court “misperceived” the applicable regulations and found that the Army Corps of Engineers’ analysis “vindicates its decision that an Environmental Assessment sufficed” to satisfy the Corps’ obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Water Act. The plaintiffs’ complaint included allegations that the Corps failed to analyze climate impacts and that floodplain and coastal loss impacts had not been considered as part of the required “public interest” analysis (though these allegations were not at issue in the preliminary injunction rulings).
Decision
04/02/2018
Opening brief filed by pipeline developers.
Brief
04/02/2018
Brief filed by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Brief
03/15/2018
Request for stay of preliminary injunction granted; pending appeal expedited.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a preliminary injunction barring construction work on the Bayou Bridge Pipeline, a crude oil pipeline in Louisiana. The Fifth Circuit said a stay was warranted because the pipeline developer was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that a Louisiana federal district court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. The Fifth Circuit said the district court should have allowed the case to proceed on the merits and sought additional briefing from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the “limited deficiencies” the d03/istrict court identified in the Corps’ analysis, which were related to the effectiveness of wetlands mitigation measures and cumulative impacts. One judge dissented, writing that he would have denied the developer’s emergency motion for a stay.
Decision
Atchafalaya Basinkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ↗
3:18-cv-00023United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (M.D. La.)10 entries
Filing Date
Document
Type
03/25/2020
Defendant's and intervenors' motions for summary judgment granted and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment denied.
Decision
02/11/2019
Motion to amend denied as futile.
Decision
03/07/2018
Pipeline developer's motion to stay preliminary injunction pending appeal denied.
Decision
03/01/2018
Motion for stay pending appeal filed.
The pipeline’s developer said it would appeal the ruling and asked the district court for a stay pending appeal.
Motion