National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service

National Wildlife Federation and other organizations (NWF) and the State of Oregon filed motions for preliminary injunctions seeking to require the Bureau of Reclamation and other federal defendants to implement measures in the operation and maintenance of the Columbia River System’s dams and reservoirs to protect salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act. They filed their motions after the Trump administration withdrew from a memorandum of understanding that specified interim parameters for the system’s operation. Oregon’s motion asserted that climate change increased the risk of irreparable harm to listed species. Oregon argued that the measures sought in the preliminary injunction motion would reduce irreparable harm and “stave off near-term extinction for many listed populations” until a more comprehensive solution was reached.

National Wildlife Federation and other organizations (NWF) and the State of Oregon filed motions for preliminary injunctions seeking to require the Bureau of Reclamation and other federal defendants to implement measures in the operation and maintenance of the Columbia River System’s dams and reservoirs to protect salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act. They filed their motions after the Trump administration withdrew from a memorandum of understanding that specified interim parameters for the system’s operation. In support of its motion, NWF argued that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that the defendants violated the ESA, including by failing to analyze whether the management of the Columbia River System would avoid jeopardy to the listed species in a future that includes climate change. NWF contended that the 2020 biological opinion prepared for the proposed action engaged “willful blindness to the real-world effects” and was arbitrary and capricious.

The National Wildlife Federation plaintiffs, the States of Oregon and Washington, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation asked the court to lift the stay of the litigation. They contended that a June 12, 2025 Presidential Memorandum and the federal defendants' subsequent withdrawal from a 2023 Memorandum of Understanding was a "significant change in circumstances" that warranted lifting the stay. The court granted the motion to lift the stay on the same day.

Environmental and conservation groups, the State of Oregon, and federal defendants asked the federal district court for the District of Oregon to stay litigation in a long-running case challenging management of the Columbia River System, a system of hydroelectric dams and reservoirs on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. In January 2021, plaintiffs filed an eighth supplemental complaint alleging that actions finalized in 2020 did not cure defects identified by the court in 2016. Among other shortcomings, the January 2021 complaint alleged a failure to fully assess the impacts of climate change on salmon, and failure to consider climate change threats to the Southern Resident killer whale. In their motion to stay litigation, the moving parties said they had reached an agreement for short-term operations of the Columbia River System that would provide “an interim compromise” while the parties worked towards “a long-term comprehensive solution that, if successful, may resolve all claims in this litigation.”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction requiring federal defendants to take certain actions to address Endangered Species Act (ESA) violations identified in a May 2016 Oregon federal court order in connection with operations of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). The district court found that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) failed to adequately consider climate change when it issued a biological opinion in 2014 concluding that the FCRPS management would not jeopardize endangered and threatened steelhead and salmon. In April 2017, the district court granted certain injunctive relief—including “increased spill” at dams to promote salmonid survival—to address the ESA violations. The Ninth Circuit noted that the ESA foreclosed consideration of all but the irreparable harm factor in the four-factor injunctive relief test and found that the district court had not erred in finding irreparable harm sufficient to support injunctive relief. The Ninth Circuit said that the district court was not required to find an “extinction-level threat” in the short term, but noted that the district court had found that continued low abundance of listed species made them vulnerable to extinction and that one of the shortcomings identified in the NMFS’s analysis was failure to analyze how climate change increased chances of “shock events” that would be catastrophic for listed species’ survival. The Ninth Circuit also dismissed an appeal of the district court’s order requiring disclosure of planned capital expenditures at FRCPS dams to allow plaintiffs the opportunity to file motions to enjoin projects that could bias the National Environmental Policy Action (NEPA) review on remand. (The district court had also found that the NEPA review did not give adequate attention to climate change). The Ninth Circuit said the district court’s disclosure order was not appealable.