- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Gwich’in Steering Committee v. Bernhardt
Collection
Gwich’in Steering Committee v. Bernhardt
Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government v. Bernhardt ↗
3:20-cv-00223D. Alaska1 entry
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
09/09/2020
Complaint
Complaint filed.
Three federally recognized Indian Tribes filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Alaska challenging federal defendants’ approval of an oil and gas leasing program on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The plaintiffs asserted claims under NEPA, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, and the National Historic Preservation Act. With respect to climate change, the tribes contended that the defendants failed to meaningfully analyze climate change in relation to subsistence, sociocultural systems, and environmental justice; cultural resources; caribou; migratory waterfowl; vegetation, tundra, and wetlands; and soils, permafrost, sand, and gravel.
National Audubon Society v. Bernhardt ↗
3:20-cv-00205D. Alaska3 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
02/12/2021
Decision
Motion to stay proceedings granted.
–
The federal district court for the District of Alaska granted federal defendants’ request for a stay of proceedings in the lawsuit challenging the approval of an oil and gas leasing program on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The parties must file a status report by April 12, 2021 advising the court about what further proceedings may be necessary.
Gwich’in Steering Committee v. Bernhardt ↗
3:20-cv-00204D. Alaska4 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
02/12/2021
Decision
Stay motion granted.
–
The federal district court for the District of Alaska granted federal defendants’ request for a stay of proceedings in the lawsuits challenging the approval of an oil and gas leasing program on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The parties must file a status report by April 12, 2021 advising the court about what further proceedings may be necessary.
01/05/2021
Decision
Motions for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction denied.
The federal district court for the District of Alaska denied without prejudice motions for a preliminary injunction barring issuance of oil and gas leases and authorization of seismic exploration on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The court found that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had not taken final action on a seismic survey proposal, but that if BLM approved the proposal, the plaintiffs could seek injunctive relief at that time. The court further found that the plaintiffs did not establish a likelihood of imminent irreparable harm since the challenged Record of Decision did not authorize any immediate “on-the-ground activities” and plaintiffs did not establish a likelihood such ground-disturbing activities would occur before the court’s final ruling on the merits.
08/24/2020
Complaint
Complaint filed.
Two lawsuits were filed in the federal district court for the District of Alaska challenging the federal review and approval of an oil and gas leasing program for the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted in 2017 authorized an oil and gas leasing program; the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released a record of decision authorizing a program on August 17, 2020. Together, the plaintiffs asserted violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the Wilderness Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Their claims included that BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to consider the leasing program’s impacts on climate change, as well as resulting impacts on polar bears. They also contended that the environmental impact statement failed to provide “a reasonably thorough discussion of the effectiveness of mitigation measures,” including lease stipulations or operating procedures, that could limit impacts, including impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.