Healthy Gulf v. Burgum

In a decision on the appropriate remedy for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) violations in connection with a March 2023 Gulf of Mexico oil and gas lease sale (Lease Sale 259), the federal district court for the District of Columbia held that the case was not moot but granted the federal defendants’ and intervenor-defendants’ requests for remand without vacatur. The court found in March 2025 that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM’s) NEPA review for the sale failed to take a hard look at impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and the Rice’s whale. In its decision on the remedy, the court rejected the defendants’ contention that the case was rendered moot by the completion of another environmental impact statement (EIS) in 2025 regarding oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf and the issuance of a new record of decision (ROD) in 2026 that covered Lease Sale. The court concluded that remand without vacatur was the appropriate remedy, however, because subsequent events such as the 2026 ROD “demonstrated a strong likelihood that BOEM can reach the same result after examining the latest information on greenhouse gas emissions and the Rice’s whale’s habitat.” The court also found that even partial vacatur would have disruptive consequences.

The federal district court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM’s) environmental review for Oil and Gas Lease Sale 259 in the Gulf of Mexico, which the Biden administration approved in February 2023, failed to take the hard look required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As threshold matters, the court concluded that the environmental organizations had associational standing for the suit and that the lease sale was subject to NEPA even though the Inflation Reduction Act mandated that BOEM hold the lease sale. On the merits, the court found that BOEM’s baseline scenario for greenhouse gas emissions did not address information—such as the Inflation Reduction Act—that BOEM admitted could have “major” implications for energy markets. The court also said BOEM failed to satisfactorily explain why it could not address such information. The court rejected, however, the environmental organizations’ contentions that BOEM failed to address the lease sale’s compatibility with U.S. climate goals. The court found that BOEM “reasonably contextualized the magnitude of its emissions estimates,” including by comparing them to emissions targets under the Paris Agreement and the Biden administration’s net-zero by 2050 target. The court also found that BOEM failed to take a hard look at impacts to Rice’s whale but concluded that BOEM adequately considered environmental justice impacts, oil spill risks, and other leasing scenarios, including reduced leasing alternatives. The court said it would order additional briefing on the appropriate remedy for the NEPA violations.