The Fifth Circuit affirmed denial of summary judgment for two Native American tribes and an environmental group in a challenge to a CWA §404 permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers to expand operations at an oil export terminal on Texas' Gulf Coast. The tribes and group sought to invalidate the permit, arguing the project would significantly damage seagrasses and wetlands and that the Corps violated NEPA and the CWA. A district court denied summary judgment for plaintiffs and granted the Corps' cross-motion. The appellate court held the Corps did not violate NEPA or the CWA by issuing the permit without an EIS, that plaintiffs forfeited any arguments related to impacts of increased vessel traffic by failing to raise them during notice-and-comment, and that the Corps did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its environmental analysis. It further found the Corps appropriately weighed benefits and costs of the project consistent with NEPA and CWA requirements, that the Corps' climate change analysis was sufficient, and that the Corps did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in issuing an EA and FONSI rather than a full EIS. The court affirmed summary judgment for the Corps.

A district court vacated DOI's termination of seven lease agreements with the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) for development of oil and gas resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. AIDEA argued DOI deprived it of due process under the Fifth Amendment by canceling the leases, deprived it of due process required by the APA, lacked authority to cancel the leases for the reasons proffered, was required to provide AIDEA an opportunity to cure before cancellation, and was required to obtain a court order to cancel the leases; and that there were no errors in the original EIS that justified cancellation. The court found the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, which provides that leases may be canceled only by court order, applied to the leases, and thus concluded DOI was required to obtain a court order before canceling them. It vacated DOI's decision and remanded for further proceedings.

A district court granted in part and denied in part summary judgment for environmental groups in a challenge to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's (BOEM's) approval of a 2023 offshore oil and gas lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico. The groups argued BOEM's assessment of greenhouse gas emissions, harms to Rice's whale, environmental justice impacts, oil spill risks, and reasonable alternatives failed to provide the "hard look" required by NEPA. The court found BOEM reasonably contextualized the magnitude of its emissions estimates, that there were no deficiencies in its environmental justice analysis serious enough to defeat NEPA's goals, that it provided sufficient detail concerning oil spill risks to satisfy NEPA, and that its choice of alternatives, given time constraints and its aim of promoting oil, gas, and wind development in the Gulf of Mexico, was reasonable; but that the Bureau acted arbitrarily by failing to address NMFS' determination that the whale habitat extended into the western and central Gulf. It granted in part and denied in part summary judgment for the groups, and granted in part and denied in part BOEM's cross-motion.

A district court granted summary judgment for landowners and a coalition of counties in a challenge to FWS' issuance of an ESA Section 4(d) Rule alongside its listing of the northern distinct population of lesser prairie-chicken as a threatened species. Plaintiffs argued FWS should have considered economic costs in issuing the Rule. The court found FWS was required to determine whether the rule was "necessary and advisable," and that such a determination required consideration of costs. Because FWS failed to account for costs, including costs of compliance, it failed to consider "all relevant factors" and ignored "important aspects of the problem before it." The court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs and vacated the Rule.

A district court granted in part and denied in part summary judgment for an environmental group in a challenge to a BLM tree thinning and harvesting project in Oregon. The group argued BLM should have prepared an EIS and failed to take a "hard look" at effects on recovery and survival of the northern spotted owl; slope stability, sedimentation, and landslide risk; and cumulative effects of other projects in the area. The court found the EA provided a reasonably thorough discussion of effects on the northern spotted owl, and took the requisite hard look at the issue of sedimentation from landslide risk, but failed to explain how sediment from road construction would affect streams or the species within them, and failed to take a hard look at cumulative impacts of a neighboring project. It granted in part and denied in part summary judgment for the group, and granted in part and denied in part BLM's cross-motion.

A district court granted two Indian tribes' motion to remand to state court a challenge brought against fossil fuel companies for climate change-related harms. The tribes sued in state court, asserting claims for public nuisance and failure to warn. The companies removed the suit to federal court, arguing the tribes' status limited their right to bring state-law claims in state court. The tribes moved to remand. The court found the tribes' claims neither asserted aboriginal title under federal common law nor presented substantial and disputed federal questions where resolution in federal court would preserve the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities; and thus that it lacked removal jurisdiction over the claims. It remanded the suit to state court for further proceedings.

The Fifth Circuit reversed a district court's dismissal of a discrimination challenge brought against St. James Parish in Louisiana. Two faith- and community-based groups argued the Parish had discriminated against them by directing hazardous industrial facility development toward majority-Black districts and Black churches where their members live; they brought seven claims for violations of their constitutional and statutory civil rights. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The appellate court found that because the groups alleged acts that fell within the applicable limitations periods, their claims under the U.S. Constitution and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) were not time-barred, and the district court erred in dismissing them for failure to state a claim on statute of limitations grounds. It also found that because the groups' alleged injuries were not merely related to physical access and were traceable to the Parish's conduct, the district court improperly dismissed the groups' claims concerning the RLUIPA and the Louisiana Constitution for lack of standing. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.