North Dakota v. U.S. Department of the Interior

–

–

The federal district court for the District of North Dakota enjoined enforcement of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rule on “Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation” rule (Waste Prevention Rule) against North Dakota, Montana, Texas, Wyoming. The court first denied the federal defendants’ motion to transfer to the District of Wyoming, which had reviewed and vacated the 2016 version of the Waste Prevention Rule. The North Dakota court found that venue was proper in the District of North Dakota and that the defendants did not meet their burden to show that transfer was warranted for judicial economy or other reasons. Regarding the plaintiff states’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court found that the states were likely to succeed on the claim that the 2024 Waste Prevention Rule was arbitrary and capricious. The court stated that the case was “an example of where the left hand of the government does not know what the right hand of the government is doing,” citing the existing Clean Air Act framework for regulating air emissions based on state-federal cooperation. The court found the BLM rule was not “reasonably explained,” including because it did not explain why requiring flaring gas rather than venting was more economically productive, did not explain exemptions to the rule’s flaring requirement, and did not support statements that production and exploration were major sources of wasted gas. Given that it found the rule to be arbitrary and capricious, the court declined to consider the plaintiff states’ argument that rule’s stated purpose was “simply a pretext for BLM’s desire to mandate flaring over venting for climate change purposes.” The court further found that the states demonstrated they would suffer irreparable harm to their sovereign authority and also found that the balance of harms and public interest favored the states.

–