Wild Virginia v. Council on Environmental Quality

Environmental groups filed a notice of appeal of the order of the federal district court for the Western District of Virginia dismissing their lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s amendment of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations implementing NEPA. The district court held that the plaintiffs did not have standing and that their claims were not ripe.

The federal district court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed without prejudice a lawsuit brought by environmental groups to challenge the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) 2020 amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. The court concluded that the groups’ claims were not justiciable both because the claims were not ripe and because the groups did not have standing. With respect to ripeness, the court found that “[t]he potential applications and outcomes of the regulatory changes adopted are simply too attenuated and speculative to allow for a full understanding and consideration of how they may impact the plaintiffs.” The court noted that each federal agency would have to adopt its own NEPA procedures before CEQ’s regulatory amendments could be applied to any particular federal action, and further noted that following the change in administrations, CEQ was “actively reconsidering” the 2020 amendments and had directed agencies not to use resources to develop their own procedures. With respect to standing, the court found that the environmental groups’ alleged environmental, procedural, and information injuries were too speculative to satisfy the constitutional injury-in-fact requirement.

The federal district court for the Western District of Virginia denied the defendants’ request for a 60-day stay to allow the Biden-Harris administration time to review challenged amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. The court noted that briefing on summary judgment motions was nearly complete and found that adding delay to the court’s decision on the pending motions would not be appropriate.

The court denied the defendants' and defendant-intervenors' motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The court also clarified that discovery was not contemplated but that summary judgment motions might be supported by expert declarations or other interpretive opinion.

The federal district court for the Western District of Virginia denied a motion for preliminary injunction or stay barring the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations from taking effect. The court concluded that while the plaintiffs “may ultimately succeed,” at this point they had not made the necessary “clear showing” that they were likely to succeed. The court indicated it was “not unlikely that interpretative testimony and expert opinion would be required for the proper determination of the validity” of the amendments. The court also said the jurisdictional standing and ripeness issues raised by the defendants “may very well require evidence.” The court also cited the Fourth Circuit’s statement that issuance of a nationwide preliminary injunction should be limited “to the most exceptional circumstances.” The court subsequently clarified that discovery was not contemplated but that summary judgment motions might be supported by expert declarations or other interpretive opinion.

Environmental groups filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Western District of Virginia challenging the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. The plaintiffs asserted 10 claims for relief under the Administrative Procedure Act. The claims included that CEQ arbitrarily and capriciously reversed policy positions, including requirements for consideration of indirect and cumulative impacts. The plaintiffs also asserted that CEQ failed to respond to relevant and significant comments, including comments that eliminating consideration of climate change would lead to wasteful spending and poor decision-making. They also alleged that CEQ failed to consider alternative approaches that would adequately protect the climate, failed to demonstrate that the amended rules were consistent with NEPA, and made changes that were outside CEQ’s authority.