Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Backcountry Against Dumps v. U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

About this case

Filing year
2020
Status
Notice of appeal filed by plaintiffs.
Docket number
3:20-cv-02343
Court/admin entity
United StatesUnited States Federal CourtsUnited States District Court for the Southern District of California (S.D. Cal.)
Case category
Federal Statutory Claims (US)Endangered Species Act and Other Wildlife Protection Statutes (US)Federal Statutory Claims (US)NEPA (US)
Principal law
United StatesAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)United StatesBald and Golden Eagle Protection ActUnited StatesMigratory Bird Treaty ActUnited StatesNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
At issue
Challenge to authorization of a lease for development, construction, operation, and maintenance of renewable energy generation facilities, including 60 wind turbines.
Topics
, ,

Documents

Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics 
Beta
08/12/2021
Appeal
08/06/2021
Motion to dismiss granted, plaintiffs' evidentiary objections overruled, plaintiffs' motion to strike denied, and other motions dismissed as moot.
The federal district court for the Southern District of California dismissed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA’s) approval of a lease between the Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians (the Tribe) and a renewable energy company for development of a wind energy project. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the environmental impact statement failed to consider the project’s entire life cycle greenhouse gas emissions. In its order dismissing the case, the court concluded that the Tribe was a necessary party that could not be joined due to tribal sovereign immunity. The court further found that allowing the case to proceed absent the Tribe would prejudice the Tribe, and that the developer and BIA could not adequately represent the Tribe’s interests. Given this “unmitigable prejudice,” the court concluded “that this litigation cannot, in good conscience, continue in the Tribe’s absence.” The court rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that the action should be allowed to proceed under the “public rights” exception for litigation that transcends private interests and seeks to vindicate a public right. The plaintiffs appealed the court’s decision, which also overruled certain evidentiary objections and a motion to strike by the plaintiffs.
Decision

Summary

Challenge to authorization of a lease for development, construction, operation, and maintenance of renewable energy generation facilities, including 60 wind turbines.

 Topics mentioned most in this case  
Beta

See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more

Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Just transition
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance