Western Energy Alliance v. Biden

–

–

Wyoming filed a motion in the federal district court for the District of Wyoming seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Biden administration’s suspension of new oil and gas leasing on public lands and in offshore waters while agencies review leasing practices. Wyoming argued it was likely to succeed on the merits of its claims under the Federal Land Planning and Management Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. Wyoming also contended it would suffer irreparable harm on four fronts: loss of revenue from federal lease sales, los of revenue from minerals Wyoming cannot recover, environmental consequences such as increased emissions from less efficient environmental controls, and procedural injury. Wyoming argued that the “purported unsubstantiated greenhouse gas benefits do not outweigh the public interest in ensuring compliance with federal law which, in turn, generates substantial revenue for the federal government.”

In two lawsuits challenging the pause on oil and gas leasing on public lands (one brought by industry groups and the other by the State of Wyoming), the federal district court for the District of Wyoming upheld the federal defendants’ actions. The court held that based on when they filed their actions, Wyoming had standing to challenge the postponement of lease sales in the first quarter of 2021 but that neither the industry groups nor Wyoming had standing to challenge lease sale postponements in the second quarter of 2021. The court further found that the first-quarter lease sale postponements did not violate the Mineral Leasing Act because the administrative record indicated that the postponements were implemented to ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in response to court decisions that found NEPA shortcomings in previously authorized lease sales, and not because the Interior Secretary stopped all quarterly lease sales pursuant to President Biden’s executive order. In addition, the court found that the first-quarter postponements were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion and did not violate the Federal Land Policy and Management Act or NEPA.

–

–