A district court vacated the Army Corps of Engineers' permit approvals under the CWA and the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) for development of a new port along the Delaware River. Three upriver ports challenged the Corps' decisionmaking process under the APA. The court found the Corps did not engage in reasoned decisionmaking as to the CWA §404/RHA §10 permit because it failed to consider the impact of the turning basin and dredging activities on the public interest in navigation and safety, and arbitrarily and capriciously departed from its own procedures in recommending approval under RHA §408 by not requiring a statement of no rejection from one of the upriver ports as the sole nonfederal sponsor of the new port. It vacated the §404/10 permit and §408 authorization.

A district court on remand permanently enjoined the Public Utility Commission of Texas from enforcing a 2019 state law that limited the ability to build, own, or operate new transmission lines to owners of existing transmission facilities in Texas, in areas of the state not covered by the main grid operator. An energy company argued that the law violated the Commerce Clause by facially discriminating against interstate commerce. The court found the law did not advance a legitimate local purpose that could not be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives, facially discriminated against interstate commerce, and did not survive strict scrutiny. It granted the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings and enjoined enforcement in regions of Texas not covered by the main grid operator.

In a divided opinion, a D.C. Circuit panel vacated FAA's and the National Park Service's plan governing tourist flights over four national parks in California, and also ruled that CEQ lacked the authority to issue regulations binding on other federal agencies. An environmental group sought to set aside the plan, arguing the agencies relied on an improper baseline for their environmental analysis by using the existing level of flights under interim operating authority as the status quo for their analysis. The court held that the agencies acted arbitrarily by using the air tours conducted under interim operating authority as the baseline for evaluating the plan's effects. The group also argued the agencies' decision not to prepare an EA or EIS was arbitrary for two additional reasons—the agencies had previously decided to prepare an EA and abandoned that plan, and they already prepared or were planning to prepare EAs for other national parks—but the court rejected both arguments. Because the agencies did not show that there was "at least a serious possibility" that they would be able to reach the same outcome on remand, the court vacated the plan and remanded to FAA. Two judges also ruled that NEPA's provisions provided no support for CEQ's authority to issue binding regulations, an argument that had not been presented by the parties.

A district court dismissed a trade group's lawsuit challenging NMFS' implementation of an amendment to the groundfish fishery management plan (FMP) that changed how the halibut bycatch limit is set for fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. The group argued the amendment violated the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and NEPA. The court found NMFS did not violate the MSA because it explained how the amendment was rationally connected with the FMP goal to manage bycatch and why any hardship imposed on the fisheries was outweighed by the total benefits received by the directed halibut fishery and halibut stock; sufficiently reasoned that the amendment was reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and adequately explained its conclusion that the amendment was practicable. It further found that the purpose and need statement in the final EIS satisfied NEPA, and that NMFS adequately explained why an alternative that considered abundance-based halibut limits for other groundfish fisheries would not be viable. It dismissed the suit.

A district court granted summary judgment for environmental groups in a challenge to Wildlife Services' reauthorization of a predator damage and conflict management program in Montana under which grizzly bears may be killed. The groups argued the Services violated NEPA by failing to include critical information about grizzly bears in the EA and failing to prepare an EIS. The court found the EA failed to take a "hard look" at the effects of the program on grizzlies, and that an EIS was required because it was reasonable to anticipate that the Services' actions might have a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. It remanded without vacatur to Wildlife Services to prepare an EIS.

In an unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Forest Service in a challenge to its approval of a 40,000-acre logging project in Malheur National Forest. An environmental group argued the Service violated NEPA by failing to adequately assess cumulative impacts, failing to prepare an EIS, and preparing a supplemental information report (SIR) rather than a supplemental EA or EIS. The court found the Service's decision to use different geographic scopes when assessing cumulative impacts on different resources and wildlife was based upon reasoned "application of scientific methodology," that an EIS was not required, and that the analysis in the SIR of new projects in the forest that were approved subsequent to the EA was proper because the impact would not be significantly different from those already considered. It also held the Service did not violate the National Forest Management Act by adopting site-specific amendments that apply to the project area rather than forest-wide amendments.

A district court granted summary judgment for an environmental group in a lawsuit alleging that an equestrian center was unlawfully discharging pollutants into waters of the United States. The group argued the center discharged wastewater into adjacent waters without an NPDES permit, which it was required to obtain as a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO). The court found the center was a CAFO, and that it discharged pollutants into waters of the United States without a permit. It granted summary judgment for the group.

A district court denied in part and dismissed in part environmental groups' motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit concerning the use of seeds treated with pesticides. The groups petitioned EPA to subject treated seeds to FIFRA, arguing the Agency could not exempt them from a separate registration process. EPA denied the petition and the groups sued, arguing the denial was arbitrary and capricious, and that EPA exceeded its statutory authority by exempting the treated seeds from going through a separate process. The court found EPA's interpretation of its own regulation was reasonable and owed deference, and that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the groups' second claim because the registration review process and subsequent opportunities for judicial appeal would address the "character" of pesticide-treated seeds. It granted summary judgment for EPA on the groups' first claim and dismissed the second claim.