Alaska v. Haaland

Three lawsuits were filed in three different federal district courts challenging BLM’s “Conservation and Landscape Health” rule. The State of Alaska filed a lawsuit in the District of Alaska; the States of Utah and Wyoming filed a <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/utah-v-haaland/">lawsuit</a> in the District of Utah; and trade associations filed a <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/american-farm-bureau-federation-v-us-department-of-the-interior/">lawsuit</a> in the District of Wyoming. North Dakota, Idaho, and Montana also filed a <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/north-dakota-v-us-department-of-interior/">lawsuit</a> in the District of North Dakota. Alaska’s complaint alleged that the final rule “dramatically alters the goals and objectives of public lands planning and management,” overriding policies “that have governed public land planning, management, and uses for many decades.” Alaska contended that the “vast majority” of the changes were not authorized by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, or any other federal law and exceeded BLM’s delegated legal authority. Alaska asserted that the rule violated the major questions doctrine and that BLM failed to comply with NEPA. With respect to mitigation obligations that the rule imposed on public land users, Alaska alleged that climate change’s adverse impacts on public lands did not justify imposition of such requirements or grant BLM additional regulatory powers.