- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- Maryland
- /
- Sierra Club v. National Marine Fisheries Service
Sierra Club v. National Marine Fisheries Service
Geography
Year
2025
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2025
Status
Memorandum of points and authorities filed in support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
Geography
Docket number
8:25-cv-01627
Court/admin entity
United States → United States Federal Courts → United States District of Maryland (D. Md.)
Case category
Federal Statutory Claims → Endangered Species Act and Other Wildlife Protection Statutes
Principal law
United States → Administrative Procedure Act (APA)United States → Endangered Species Act (ESA)
At issue
Challenge to the National Marine Fisheries Service’s issuance of a new “Biological Opinion on the Federally Regulated Oil and Gas Program Activities in the Gulf of America” after the court set aside a previous biological opinion in 2024.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
10/03/2025
Memorandum of points and authorities filed in support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
Motion For Summary Judgment
05/20/2025
Complaint filed.
Sierra Club and three other environmental organizations filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Maryland challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS’s) issuance of a new “Biological Opinion on the Federally Regulated Oil and Gas Program Activities in the Gulf of America.” NMFS prepared the biological opinion after the court <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/sierra-club-v-national-marine-fisheries-service/">found</a> in 2024 that a 2020 biological opinion violated the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The 2025 biological opinion found that the proposed activities would jeopardize the continued existence of the Rice’s whale but that proposed mitigation measures would prevent jeopardy. The biological opinion also concluded that the proposed activities would not jeopardize the continued existence of other protected species or adversely modify critical habitat. The plaintiffs’ claims included that the biological opinion failed to account for how climate change-related population shifts would interact with effects of the proposed action in the analysis of whether the proposed action would jeopardize protected species or cause adverse modification to critical habitat. The plaintiffs also alleged that NMFS failed to use best available science on the effects of climate change on endangered species and their Gulf habitats. Louisiana, American Petroleum Institute, and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. filed a lawsuit in the Western District of Louisiana challenging the biological opinion. They did not make arguments that were directly climate change-related but asserted that the 2025 biological opinion overestimated impacts of oil and gas program vessels on listed species, imposed a “reasonable and prudent alternative” based on “hypothesized vessel strikes that are not reasonably certain to occur,” used the wrong take standard, and imposed unnecessary “reasonable and prudent measures” to minimize the impacts of incidental take.
Complaint
Summary
Challenge to the National Marine Fisheries Service’s issuance of a new “Biological Opinion on the Federally Regulated Oil and Gas Program Activities in the Gulf of America” after the court set aside a previous biological opinion in 2024.
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
Economic sector