- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- California
- /
- Whitewater Draw Natural Resource Conservation District v. Johnson
Whitewater Draw Natural Resource Conservation District v. Johnson
Geography
Year
2016
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2016
Status
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment denied and defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment granted.
Geography
Docket number
3:16-cv-02583-L-BLM
Court/admin entity
United States → United States Federal Courts → United States District Court for the Southern District of California (S.D. Cal.)
Case category
Federal Statutory Claims (US) → NEPA (US)
Principal law
United States → National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
At issue
Lawsuit claiming that Department of Homeland Security failed to consider environmental impacts, including impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, of discretionary immigration actions.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
Search results
06/01/2020
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment denied and defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment granted.
Finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish standing, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Decision
–
05/24/2019
Memorandum filed by defendant in support of cross-motion for summary judgment and in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
Decision
–
04/23/2019
Memorandum filed by plaintiffs in support of their motion for summary judgment on Counts III, IV, and V of the amended complaint.
Motion For Summary Judgment
–
09/30/2018
Defendants' motion for partial dismissal granted.
Decision
–
01/22/2018
Partial motion to dismiss amended complaint filed by federal defendants.
Motion To Dismiss
–
01/22/2018
Memorandum filed by federal defendants in support of partial motion to dismiss.
Decision
–
01/22/2018
Motion to dismiss (filed in October 2017) denied as moot.
Decision
–
12/08/2017
Amended complaint filed.
Complaint
–
10/06/2017
Motion to dismiss complaint in part for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim filed by federal defendants.
Motion To Dismiss
–
09/12/2017
Defendants' motion to stay granted.
Decision
–
06/01/2017
Motion to stay filed by federal defendants.
On June 1, 2017, the federal defendants filed a motion to stay the action, arguing that executive orders issued by President Trump required DHS to review and potentially rescind or revise many of the policies at issue, rendering the proceeding moot.
Motion
–
10/17/2016
Complaint filed.
A group of plaintiffs filed a complaint in the federal district court for the Southern District of California in October 2016 in which they alleged that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had failed to comply with NEPA when taking discretionary actions with respect to immigration. The plaintiffs included Arizona conservation districts, conservation district officials, nonprofit groups with missions to reduce or stabilize population growth and reduce immigration, and members of such organizations. The plaintiffs alleged that DHS discretionary actions resulted in in significant environmental impacts, including increases in greenhouse gas emissions, throughout the United States. The complaint alleged, among other things, that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions were increasing due to “immigration-driven population growth” and that emissions associated with immigration to the U.S. were equal to five percent of the increase in global emissions since 1980.
Complaint
–
Summary
Lawsuit claiming that Department of Homeland Security failed to consider environmental impacts, including impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, of discretionary immigration actions.
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
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance