Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Haaland

About this case

Filing year
2019
Status
District court affirmance of agency action reversed and case remanded for district court to determine the appropriate remedy.
Docket number
21-2116
Court/admin entity
United StatesUnited States Federal CourtsUnited States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (10th Cir.)
Case category
Federal Statutory Claims (US)NEPA (US)
Principal law
United StatesAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)United StatesNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
At issue
Challenge to approvals of application for permits to drill in the Mancos Shale/Gallup formations.
Topics
, ,

Documents

Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics 
Beta
02/01/2023
District court affirmance of agency action reversed and case remanded for district court to determine the appropriate remedy.
Reversing a district court, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to take a hard look at the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on greenhouse gas emissions of applications for permits to drill (APDs) for oil and gas in the Mancos Shale and Gallup Sandstone formations in the San Juan Basin of New Mexico. The court also found that BLM failed to take a hard look at the cumulative impact of hazardous air pollutant emissions but concluded that BLM’s analysis of impacts on water resources and criteria air pollutants was sufficient. With respect to greenhouse gas emissions, the Tenth Circuit found that BLM unreasonably used estimates of annual emissions from construction and operation of wells to represent emissions over the estimated 20-year life span of the wells. The court also found that BLM’s analysis did not explain the agency’s conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions from the wells would have only a de minimis impact on climate change. Because a public comment had requested that BLM use a “carbon budget” method to assess the impacts of the wells’ emissions, the Tenth Circuit ruled that BLM acted arbitrarily and capriciously by neither applying that method nor explaining why it did not apply it. The Tenth Circuit concluded, however, that BLM did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it used 100-year time horizons (rather than a 20-year horizon) to evaluate the impacts of methane emissions. The Tenth Circuit remanded to the district court to determine whether to vacate the APD approvals or grant other injunctive relief. The Tenth Circuit also enjoined approval of any additional APDs based on the deficient environmental analyses pending the district court’s determination of the appropriate remedy.
Decision
03/02/2022
Brief filed by intervenor-appellee American Petroleum Institute.
Brief
03/02/2022
Brief
03/02/2022
Response brief filed by DJR Energy Holdings, LLC and SIMCOE LLC.
Brief
12/23/2021
Brief filed by amicus curiae Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law in support of plaintiff-appellants and reversal.
Amicus Motion/Brief

Summary

Challenge to approvals of application for permits to drill in the Mancos Shale/Gallup formations.

 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
Target
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance