- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- California
- /
- Backcountry Against Dumps v. U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs
Backcountry Against Dumps v. U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs
Geography
Year
2020
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2020
Status
Notice of appeal filed by plaintiffs.
Geography
Docket number
3:20-cv-02343
Court/admin entity
United States → United States Federal Courts → United 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 States → Administrative Procedure Act (APA)United States → Bald and Golden Eagle Protection ActUnited States → Migratory Bird Treaty ActUnited States → National 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
Search results
08/12/2021
Notice of appeal filed by plaintiffs.
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
–
01/22/2021
First amended and supplemental complaint filed.
Complaint
–
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