A district court granted an Indian tribe's motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) in a challenge to BLM's approval of a lithium mine exploration project in Arizona. The tribe argued BLM violated the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) when it found that no historical properties were affected, and violated NEPA by failing to consider a reasonable range of alternatives and failing to take a "hard look" at impacts on water resources. The court found the tribe was likely to suffer irreparable injury as the next phase of drilling was already scheduled to take place on lands adjacent to a medicinal spring sacred to the tribe, and that the tribe had raised sufficiently serious questions regarding BLM's compliance with NHPA to justify a TRO. It temporarily enjoined BLM from authorizing or allowing any ground disturbance, construction, operation, or other activity approved for the project.

A district court granted the state of Louisiana's motion to permanently enjoin EPA from (1) enforcing disparate impact requirements under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act against any entity of the state, or requiring compliance with those requirements as a condition of financial assistance; and (2) enforcing against any state entity any disparate impact or cumulative impact requirement under Title VI that has not been ratified by the president and is not contained in Agency regulations implementing Title VI.

A district court largely upheld BLM's approval of a proposed dolomite mining project near the Florida Mountains in New Mexico. Environmental groups challenged the approval, arguing BLM violated NEPA by failing to adequately consider adverse effects on water, air, wildlife, a wilderness study area, and other resources. The court found BLM took the requisite "hard look" at reasonably foreseeable air quality and water quantity impacts from the mine's off-site processing mill as well as impacts of transporting magnesium ore from the mine to the mill, and adequately considered reasonable alternatives; but that it failed take a "hard look" at water quality impacts arising from the mill, namely pollution from magnesium sludge. It remanded the EA and FONSI to BLM to remedy the water quality impacts analysis.

The D.C. Circuit granted in part and denied in part challenges to FERC orders reauthorizing two liquefied natural gas export terminals in Texas and a pipeline that would carry natural gas to one of them. The city of Port Isabel and an environmental group argued FERC failed to comply with NEPA and Natural Gas Act requirements. The court found FERC erroneously declined to issue supplemental EISs addressing its updated environmental justice analysis for each project and its consideration of a carbon capture and sequestration system for one of the terminals, and that it failed to explain why it declined to consider air quality data from a nearby monitor. It granted the petitions in those respects, vacated the orders, and remanded to FERC for further consideration.