Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management

On December 1, 2023, the federal district court for the District of Alaska denied plaintiffs’ motions for injunction pending their appeal of the court’s judgment upholding federal approvals for the Willow Master Development Plan, which authorized oil production on leases in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. The court found that the plaintiffs did not show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims or raise serious questions going to the merits of those claims. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not establish irreparable harm from planned 2023-2024 planned winter construction activities. In addition, the court found that the balance of the equities and the public interest tipped sharply against injunctive relief pending appeal.

–

–

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for rehearing en banc of claims challenging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s approval of the Willow Master Development Plan under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The Ninth Circuit largely rejected challenges to the Willow project, a major oil and gas project in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve, in June 2025.

–

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld federal agencies’ authorizations for the Willow Project, a major oil and gas project in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve (NPR-A). The Ninth Circuit concluded, however, that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) approval of the project was arbitrary and capricious because the agency did not explain its decision to select an alternative that did not facilitate “full field development” and that “stranded economically viable quantities of oil” despite its earlier decisions not to consider alternatives that did not allow for full field development. The Ninth Circuit rejected the other National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) argument made by environmental groups: that BLM failed to consider downstream greenhouse gas emissions from future oil development caused by the Willow project as indirect effects. The court found that by estimating emissions from potential future development in the cumulative effects section, BLM had complied with its NEPA obligations to consider indirect effects and cumulative impacts. Under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act (Reserves Act), the Ninth Circuit rejected an argument that BLM had unlawfully rejected alternatives that would have reduced effects on significant surface resources in the NPR-A. The Ninth Circuit also found that BLM reasonably explained its decision not to adopt certain mitigation measures—including offsetting emissions through reforestation, limiting the project’s lifespan, and requiring periodic NEPA reviews—to address downstream greenhouse gas emissions caused by the project that petitioners said would harm surface resources. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Ninth Circuit found that Center for Biological Diversity had standing for its ESA claims but rejected them on the merits. The court found that BLM was not arbitrary or capricious when it declined to expand the scope of its consultation under Section 7 of the ESA to consider potential impacts on polar bears and other listed species due to sea ice reduction caused by project-specific greenhouse gas emissions. The court further found that the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by concurring with BLM’s ESA analysis. The Ninth Circuit also found that BLM satisfied the requirements of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). The court remanded without vacatur. One judge dissented from the majority’s remedy; he would have vacated the approval of the project because BLM failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the full field development standard that could be reconciled with the procedural and substantive requirements of NEPA, the Reserves Act, and ANILCA. He also raised questions regarding whether the regulations that allowed the federal agencies to forgo formal consultation under the ESA were consistent with the ESA’s text and purpose. In particular, he questioned the regulations’ but-for causation requirement for determining the scope of consultation. He wrote that “there is no telling whether scientific development in our time, or in generations to come, will allow for direct attribution between a project’s particular greenhouse gas emissions and its climate consequences,” but that “this dilemma should not allow an agency to cast aside their formal consultation obligations when presented with evidence that their actions will, albeit indirectly, adversely impact listed species.”

On April 28, the plaintiffs requested voluntary dismissal of their appeals of the denial of the injunction. The plaintiffs said they had conferred with the proponent of the project and learned that winter construction activities would be completed the week of May 1 and that major construction activities would not resume until the winter freeze-up in late 2023, allowing the plaintiffs to seek a briefing schedule that would make it possible for the district court to resolve the case before commencement of further ground-disturbing activities.

–

On April 19, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied emergency motions for an injunction pending appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction to block work on the Willow Project, an oil and gas development project in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.