A district court granted the Biden Administration's motion to dismiss a challenge to the president's 2023 designation of Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni—Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument. The Arizona state legislature, a cattle rancher, and other plaintiffs argued Proclamation No. 10606 exceeded the president's authority to designate national monuments under the Antiquities Act. The government moved to dismiss for lack of standing. The court found the legislature's alleged injuries belonged to the state, and that the rancher's alleged fears of prosecution for damaging grass or moving pottery shards did not amount to a substantial threat of criminal penalties being enforced on him. Because neither party had established standing, it granted the motion to dismiss.

The Fourth Circuit vacated a district court order that denied a motion to preliminarily enjoin the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's recommended fishery management plan (FMP) for striped bass. A trade group, a group of charter boat captains, and two individuals operating in Maryland sued the Commission, alleging due process and takings claims under the U.S. Constitution and related claims under the Maryland Constitution. The district court found plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits, concluding they likely lacked standing because their alleged injuries were unlikely to be redressed by enjoining the FMP. The appellate court concluded plaintiffs lacked standing because they were regulated by Maryland, not the Commission, and they did not allege that enjoining the recommended plan would likely cause Maryland to rescind its own regulations; even if they had, they would have needed to bolster that allegation with specific reasons supporting it, as Maryland adopted stricter measures than the FMP called for. The appellate court vacated the order and remanded with instructions to dismiss the suit.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of a motion to temporarily enjoin construction on a real estate development project in South Carolina. Environmental groups argued the CWA §404 permit issued for the project violated the ESA by using a habitat surrogate to set the level of anticipated take of the endangered northern long-eared bat, and violated NEPA because it was issued after completing an EA rather than an EIS. The district court concluded the groups did not have a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits, would not experience irreparable harm absent an injunction, and that the balance of equities did not fall in their favor. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding the lower court did not abuse its discretion when it determined the groups did not have a sufficient likelihood of success.