- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- National Wildlife Refuge Association v. Rural Util...
Collection
National Wildlife Refuge Association v. Rural Utilities Service
National Wildlife Refuge Association v. Rural Utilities Service ↗
3:24-cv-00139W.D. Wis.4 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
03/25/2024
Decision
Land transfer enjoined to allow production and review of administrative record.
The court preliminarily enjoined the federal defendants and developers from taking action to close an agreement to exchange 19.84 acres of land within the refuge for 35.69 acres of land held by two of the developers. The injunction also barred commencement of construction on the line through the refuge until the court had an opportunity to consider the administrative record underlying the agencies’ February 2024 decisions. The court stated that “[t]here are a number of problems with the [developers] being allowed to proceed. Most fundamentally, federal defendants and [the developers] have orchestrated the events here to preclude judicial review of the final determination until after substantial damage has already been done to what until now was the Refuge. Whatever the merits of plaintiffs’ challenge to the federal defendants’ decision to proceed with the land exchange under the relevant statutes, some meaningful review by this court is necessary to determine ‘whether that decision is supported by substantial evidence.’”
03/20/2024
Opposition
Opposition to preliminary injunction motion filed by owners of a portion of the transmission line project.
–
03/06/2024
Complaint
Complaint filed.
Three conservation groups filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Western District of Wisconsin challenging federal agency actions that facilitate development of a high-voltage transmission line from Dubuque County, Iowa, to Middleton, Wisconsin, passing through the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. The plaintiffs asserted violations of NEPA, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. The plaintiffs <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/national-wildlife-refuge-association-v-rural-utilities-service/">previously challenged</a> approvals for the project. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, but the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the case did not present a reviewable final agency decision. In the new lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged that the agencies had made final agency decisions in February 2024 when they issued a final EIS and record of decision and supplemental environmental assessment. The complaint alleged that these documents violated NEPA, including by failing to take a hard look at climate change impacts even though the federal defendants and the transmission line developers acknowledged the line would carry electricity from fossil fuel power plants.
National Wildlife Refuge Association v. Rural Utilities Service ↗
24-14927th Cir.2 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
11/06/2024
Decision
Preliminary injunctions vacated and case remanded.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that appeal of preliminary injunctions halting a wildlife refuge land exchange and construction of a high-voltage transmission line through the refuge was moot after the injunction was stayed and the exchange and construction of the line were completed. The Seventh Circuit remanded the case to the district court for a determination of whether the plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction was also moot. The plaintiffs’ claims included that that the defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act, including by failing to take a hard look at climate change impacts of the project.
05/02/2024
Decision
Effectiveness of preliminary injunction stayed.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the effectiveness of a preliminary injunction that barred federal defendants and developers of a transmission line from taking action to close an agreement to exchange land within the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge for land held by the developers to facilitate construction of the transmission line through the refuge. Conservation groups argue that the federal defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act, including by failing to consider climate change impacts.