Gwich’in Steering Committee v. Bernhardt

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.

In a lawsuit first filed in 2020 to challenge the Secretary of the Interior’s August 2020 authorization of an oil and gas leasing program in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, three environmental organizations filed an amended and supplemental complaint on January 13, 2026 to also challenge the “newest iteration” of the authorization of the program, which the Secretary issued in October 2025. The plaintiffs assert that both the 2020 and 2025 programs exceeded congressional authorization and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Wilderness Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, NEPA, and the Endangered Species Act. The complaint alleged that “[t]he Coastal Plain, like the rest of America’s Arctic, is already profoundly stressed by the effects of climate change” and that “[c]onsumption of fossil fuels—encouraged by expanded oil and gas development such as that proposed by Defendants the Secretary of the Interior and BLM in the Program—is the main cause of climate change.” The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ NEPA review “ignored or obscured potential harm to tundra, permafrost, and other landscape features, water quantity and quality, air quality, the climate, wilderness characteristics, and wildlife” and “included a misleadingly narrow range of alternatives.”

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.

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.