In an unpublished opinion, the Sixth Circuit granted environmental groups' motion to stay CWA permits issued for construction of a proposed pipeline in Tennessee. The groups argued the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) and the Army Corps of Engineers violated the CWA by failing to consider viable water-crossing alternatives for the proposed route, resulting in impermissible detrimental environmental impact from the pipeline's construction. The court found the groups were at risk of considerable irreparable harm absent a stay, given that TDEC's approval of the §401 application authorized "permanent impacts" to 0.03 acres of wetland and 490 linear feet of stream. It granted the motion to stay pending review.

A district court granted in part and denied in part summary judgment in environmental groups' challenge to BLM's approval of land management plans designating route networks for off-highway vehicles (OHVs) in the western Mojave Desert. The groups argued the 2019 OHV route network violated FLPMA, NEPA, and the ESA. The court concluded the network did not comply with minimization criteria because the record did not affirmatively demonstrate how BLM designated OHV routes with the objective of minimizing impacts on the threatened desert tortoise, Lane Mountain milk-vetch, and other resources, and because the Bureau improperly relied on optional, post-designation mitigation measures to satisfy its obligation to designate routes that complied with regulatory criteria. It further concluded FWS violated the ESA by relying on BLM's optional mitigation measures to avoid "jeopardy" to the desert tortoise and ignoring best available science in reaching its "no jeopardy" findings. But it found BLM's supplemental EIS adequately discussed environmental impacts, and that the Bureau explored a reasonable range of alternatives. It granted in part and denied in part summary judgment for both the groups and the agencies.

A district court granted Colorado parks and wildlife agencies' motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the reintroduction of gray wolves in the state. A conservation group argued the agencies violated NEPA by failing to conduct or complete the environmental review process required for wolf introduction, and violated the ESA by capturing wolves and releasing them in the state. The court found the group failed to show the decision to release wolves in Colorado was a "major federal action" subject to NEPA, and that it failed to state a claim for violation of ESA §9 because the wolves were not a listed species in eastern Oregon, where they were captured and transported from, and because an agreement between Colorado and FWS exempted them from liability under §9 once the wolves were released in Colorado. It dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

A district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a nonprofit group's challenge to the Forest Service's and BLM's herd management plan for wild horses and burros in Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. The group argued the agencies arbitrarily and capriciously authorized use of surgical sterilization, violated the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act by failing to consider less risky alternatives and the impacts of surgical sterilization, and violated NEPA by failing to prepare an EIS and failing to adequately consider impacts of surgical sterilization on the environment. The court found the group failed to establish that its organizational activities had been perceptibly impaired or that it had used its resources to counteract the alleged harm in any way beyond advocating against the agencies' conduct. It dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Hawaii Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases (GHGs) were "pollutants" under several insurance policies' pollution exclusions and that an "accident" included an insured's reckless conduct for purposes of a challenge against fossil fuel companies for climate change-related harms. The city and county of Honolulu and the county of Maui have sued the companies, arguing they acted recklessly by emitting GHGs despite knowing the climate risk and misleading the public about the dangers of emitting them. One company demanded a defense from two insurance companies that issued liability policies to its parent company. The court found the insurance policies covered an "occurrence," which was defined as an "accident," and that an "accident" included reckless conduct. It further found that GHGs were "pollutants" under the policies' pollution exclusion clause, which barred coverage for emitting or misleading the public about emitting GHGs.

In an unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a challenge to the Forest Service's approval of sheep grazing allotments in Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest. An environmental group argued the Service overlooked new information on grizzly bear mortality and conflicts with sheep dogs. The appellate court found the district court correctly dismissed the group's request to compel the Service to complete its planned environmental analyses for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Service already fulfilled its duty to conduct analyses under NEPA; and correctly found the Service did not violate NEPA because it reasonably concluded it did not have to prepare a supplemental analysis after a dead bighorn ewe was found in one of the allotments. It affirmed dismissal.

A district court held that the Army Corps of Engineers violated the CWA and NEPA by issuing a dredge-and-fill permit to a municipal water utility to allow a dam expansion project in Denver. Environmental groups argued the Corps violated the CWA by excluding alternatives as impracticable based on an erroneous interpretation of EPA's §404(b)(1) guidelines, that it violated NEPA by considering effectively indistinguishable alternatives and failing to quantify climate change impact on precipitation, and that FWS violated the ESA by extending but later withdrawing interim protections for the green lineage cutthroat trout despite promising to maintain them until it completed its established peer-review process. The court found that the Corps' "idiosyncratic" interpretation of the §404(b)(1) guidelines was unlawful, and that its narrow alternatives analysis and refusal to provide an estimate on future hydrology violated NEPA, but that FWS adequately justified its decision to withdraw interim protections. It deferred a ruling on remedies until further briefing.