North Dakota v. U.S. Department of Interior

The defendants filed a motion to transfer the action to the federal district court for the District of Utah, where Utah and Wyoming had filed a <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/utah-v-haaland/">challenge</a> to the rule several days before this lawsuit was filed.

North Dakota, Idaho, and Montana filed a lawsuit in federal district court in North Dakota challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) final “Conservation and Landscape Health” rule, which the three states characterized as “part of BLM’s broader initiative to use statutory authority given to the Agency for facilitate the development of public resources into a policy of obstructing and preventing the development of these resources for climate change reasons.” The states asserted that the rule violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), including because it unlawfully elevated “conservation” as a “use” under FLPMA’s “multiple use framework,” was inconsistent with the states’ Natural Resources Management Plans, and did not comply with FLPMA procedural requirements. In addition, the states asserted violations of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (because the rule is “substantially similar” to the Obama administration’s 2.0 Planning Rule, which was rejected under the CRA), NEPA, and the Mineral Leasing Act. The states also asserted that the rule was arbitrary and capricious.