Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database
Collection

Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of the Interior

Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of the Interior 

1:22-cv-01716D.D.C.27 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
11/01/2023
Decision
Intervenor-defendants' motion to dismiss granted.
The federal district court for the District of Columbia dismissed for lack of standing a lawsuit brought by four environmental organizations to challenge more than 4,000 federal approvals of applications for permit to drill for oil and gas in New Mexico and Wyoming. The court found that the organizations failed to establish associational standing because they did not allege any individual member’s “geographic nexus to any specific well or drilling sites” affected by challenged individual APDs. The court also found that the one organization that argued that it had organizational standing failed to connect its mission to any particular APD approval or to connect changes in its resources needs to the approvals.
04/07/2023
Reply
Reply filed by defendant-intervenors Petroleum Association of Wyoming et al. in support of motion to sever and transfer.
04/07/2023
Reply
Reply memorandum filed by plaintiff conservation groups to defendants' response to intervenor-defendants' consolidated motion to dismiss.
04/07/2023
Reply
Reply memorandum filed by intervenor-defendants in support of consolidated motion to dismiss.

Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of the Interior 

23-5308D.C. Cir.1 entry
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
07/15/2025
Decision
Judgment of dismissal affirmed.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s determination that environmental organizations did not establish standing to challenge the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s approval of more than 4,000 Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) for oil and gas wells in New Mexico and Wyoming. First, the D.C. Circuit found that the organizations’ members’ allegations that they lived, worked, and recreated in the areas encompassing all the approved APDs in each of the states were not supported by information regarding which APDs would cause the members’ harm. The court said the plaintiffs “must somehow establish an injury in fact traceable to every challenged well.” Second, the D.C. Circuit found that the organizations did not establish associational standing for Endangered Species Act (ESA) claims based on allegations that the permits would contribute to climate change and “intensify threats to listed habitats and species that they travel to observe and study.” The D.C. Circuit concluded that its precedent suggested “that environmental plaintiffs cannot demonstrate the required concrete and particularized harm to their interests only by asserting that a challenged government action will contribute to a particular harmful effect of global climate change.” The court further concluded that even if an injury resulting from climate change could support standing, the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that their injury was traceable to the challenged action and redressable by a favorable judicial decision. Third, the court held that one of the organizations did not have organizational standing for its ESA claims based on allegations that the failure to conduct consultation under the ESA deprived the organization of information about the permits’ impacts on imperiled species.