- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- Alaska
- /
- Natural Resources Defense Council v. Burgum
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Burgum
Geography
Year
2020
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2020
Status
Second amended and first supplemental complaint filed.
Geography
Docket number
3:20-cv-00205
Court/admin entity
United States → United States District Court for the District of Alaska (D. Alaska)United States → United States Federal Courts
Case category
Federal Statutory Claims (US) → NEPA (US)Federal Statutory Claims (US) → Other Statutes and Regulations (US)
Principal law
United States → Administrative Procedure Act (APA)United States → Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation ActUnited States → Endangered Species Act (ESA)United States → National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)United States → National Wildlife Refuge System Administration ActUnited States → Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017United States → Wilderness Act
At issue
Challenge to federal review and approval of an oil and gas leasing program for the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
01/13/2026
Second amended and first supplemental complaint filed.
In a lawsuit first filed in 2020 to challenge the Secretary of the Interior’s August 2020 authorization of an oil and gas leasing program in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, three environmental organizations filed an amended and supplemental complaint on January 13, 2026 to also challenge the “newest iteration” of the authorization of the program, which the Secretary issued in October 2025. The plaintiffs assert that both the 2020 and 2025 programs exceeded congressional authorization and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Wilderness Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, NEPA, and the Endangered Species Act. The complaint alleged that “[t]he Coastal Plain, like the rest of America’s Arctic, is already profoundly stressed by the effects of climate change” and that “[c]onsumption of fossil fuels—encouraged by expanded oil and gas development such as that proposed by Defendants the Secretary of the Interior and BLM in the Program—is the main cause of climate change.” The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ NEPA review “ignored or obscured potential harm to tundra, permafrost, and other landscape features, water quantity and quality, air quality, the climate, wilderness characteristics, and wildlife” and “included a misleadingly narrow range of alternatives.”
Complaint
02/10/2021
Unopposed motion filed by defendants to stay proceedings.
Motion
Summary
Challenge to federal review and approval of an oil and gas leasing program for the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
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
Impacted group
Just transition
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Finance