WildEarth Guardians v. Bernhardt

WildEarth Guardians filed an appeal in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals of the District of New Mexico’s August 2020 decision rejecting the bulk of WildEarth Guardian’s challenge to three leases for oil and gas development in southeastern New Mexico. The district court upheld, among other things, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s analysis of cumulative climate change impacts and found that use of the Social Cost of Carbon was not required.

–

–

On November 2, 2021, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted WildEarth Guardians’ motion for voluntary dismissal of its appeal of a district court decision rejecting claims that BLM’s sale of oil and gas leases in southeastern New Mexico did not comply with NEPA and other federal statutes. The district court upheld, among other things, BLM’s analysis of cumulative climate change impacts and also found that use of the Social Cost of Carbon was not required. In June, the Tenth Circuit granted a motion by WildEarth Guardians and the federal defendants to abate the case to facilitate mediation of a potential resolution of the dispute.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a motion by federal defendants-appellees and WildEarth Guardians to abate WildEarth Guardians’ appeal of a 2020 district court decision that largely rejected the organization’s claims that the National Environmental Policy Act review for oil and gas leases in southeastern New Mexico was inadequate. The arguments rejected by the district court included that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) failed to consider cumulative climate change effects and that BLM should have applied the social cost of carbon. In their request for abatement, the federal defendants and WildEarth Guardians said abatement was necessary to facilitate further mediation of a potential resolution that would avoid the need for further litigation. American Petroleum Institute opposed abatement, arguing that it would delay final resolution of the claims and undermine national policies favoring development of oil and gas resources as well as private investments in the issued leases. The court abated the case for an initial 180-day period and said continuation of the abatement beyond that time would require agreement of all parties or an order of the court.

–