Western Energy Alliance v. Zinke

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s denial of conservation groups’ motion to intervene in an oil and gas trade association’s lawsuit that sought to compel the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to hold quarterly lease sales for federal minerals. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the federal district court for the District of New Mexico had erred in denying the groups’ motion to intervene as of right. Like the district court, the Tenth Circuit found that the groups’ motion to intervene had been timely. The Tenth Circuit also agreed with the district court that the groups had an interest in protecting public lands from the impacts of oil and gas development. The Tenth Circuit concluded, however, that the conservation groups had an additional interest in preserving reforms they had worked implement, including a “Leasing Reform Policy” (Policy). While the district court had concluded that the lawsuit did not seek to set aside or modify the Policy, the Tenth Circuit found that “the district court overlooked two key points”: (1) that increasing the frequency of lease sales could require BLM to abandon existing policies and (2) that the trade association asked the court to require BLM to revise or rescind the Policy if the court found that the Policy violated the Mineral Leasing Act. The Tenth Circuit therefore found that the conservation groups’ interests might be impaired or impeded by the pending case and further concluded that BLM could not adequately represent the groups’ interests. In finding that the federal defendants could not adequately represent the groups’ interests, the court cited executive orders signed by President Trump that directed review of agency regulations that potentially burden development of oil, gas, and other domestic energy resources.

Briefing was completed in April in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on the issue of whether a New Mexico federal court properly denied conservation groups’ motion to intervene in a lawsuit in which Western Energy Alliance sought to compel the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to hold quarterly oil and gas lease sales for public lands. The district court found that the groups had not shown that their interests would be impeded by the litigation or that their interests could not be adequately represented by existing parties. On appeal, the conservation groups argued that they were entitled to intervene as of right because the relief sought by the Alliance would impair their interests by increasing the frequency of lease sales and undermining leasing reforms that had provided greater public participation and more environmental review. The groups also argued that they had met their “minimal” burden of demonstrating that BLM might not adequately represent their interests; the groups said BLM, which was charged with “balancing” different uses of public lands, would not adequately represent the groups’ interest in “protecting” those lands. The groups also asserted that the district court abused its discretion by not granting permissive intervention.

The federal government, which had not opposed intervention in the district court, submitted an amicus brief supporting the district court’s denial of intervention. The amicus brief argued that Western Energy Alliance had conceded that it would not seek to limit BLM’s discretion to decide when eligible mineral lands were available for oil and gas leasing and that the case therefore did not threaten to impair the conservation groups’ interests.

In its response brief, Western Energy Alliance said that the conservation groups mischaracterized the relief sought in the lawsuit, which the Alliance said was limited to enforcing BLM’s nondiscretionary duty under the Mineral Leasing Act to conduct quarterly lease sales when lands were eligible. The Alliance said it did not seek to change the definition of “eligible” or modify the process by which lands were identified as eligible.