- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- California
- /
- California v. Council on Environmental Quality
California v. Council on Environmental Quality
Geography
Year
2020
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2020
Status
Joint status report and unopposed motion to extend stay of case by 120 days filed.
Geography
Docket number
3:20-cv-06057
Court/admin entity
United States → United States District Court for the Northern District of California (N.D. Cal.)United States → United States Federal Courts
Case category
Federal Statutory Claims (US) → NEPA (US)
Principal law
United States → Administrative Procedure Act (APA)United States → National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
At issue
Challenge to amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act regulations.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
11/03/2022
Joint status report and unopposed motion to extend stay of case by 120 days filed.
Status Report
06/23/2022
Parties filed joint status report and motion to extend stay of case by 120 days.
Status Report
06/03/2021
Joint status report filed.
Status Report
02/11/2021
Joint stipulation filed to stay case for 60 days.
Stipulation
01/15/2021
Opposition to motions to dismiss filed.
Opposition
12/01/2020
Motion to dismiss filed.
Motion To Dismiss
11/23/2020
Amended complaint filed.
Complaint
11/10/2020
Motion to intervene filed by American Farm Bureau Federation et al.
Motion To Intervene
08/28/2020
Complaint filed.
On August 28, 2020, California and 20 other states, along with Guam, the District of Columbia, Harris County in Texas, and New York City, filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California challenging the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) amendments to the NEPA regulations. Like the three other previously filed challenges, the states’ complaint asserted that amendments arbitrarily and unlawfully made changes that limit review of climate change impacts, including by narrowing the scope of effects required to be considered, imposing strict causation requirements, and directing agencies not to consider cumulative and indirect effects. The plaintiffs asserted that the final rule was contrary to NEPA’s language and exceeded CEQ’s statutory authority; that the final rule was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law; and that CEQ violated NEPA by not preparing an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement to consider the final rule’s impacts. In addition, the plaintiffs asserted that CEQ violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide an opportunity to comment on the Regulatory Impact Analysis and by failing to respond adequately to comments on the proposed rule.
Complaint
Summary
Challenge to amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act regulations.
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