The Seventh Circuit reversed a district court's preliminary injunction prohibiting approval of a proposed land exchange in Wisconsin for construction of a high-voltage electric transmission line that would run through the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. The appellate court held the district court did not find plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, and that the absence of such a finding precluded entry of a preliminary injunction. It stayed the effectiveness of the preliminary injunction, but noted the district court remained free to consider whether a permanent injunction was appropriate.

A district court granted summary judgment for a fisheries biologist in a challenge to the Army Corps of Engineers' flood control operations at a California dam. The biologist argued the operations, which released water from the dam into the Russian River, violated §9 of the ESA by unlawfully "taking" listed salmonid species, and that the Corps and NMFS violated ESA §7 by failing to reinitiate consultation; and sought a preliminary injunction. The court found the releases caused unlawful take of protected salmonids, at least by harassing them, and that the agencies failed to timely reinitiate consultation. It granted summary judgment for the biologist, and held his requested injunctive relief in abeyance pending completion of the agencies' reinitiated consultation or further court order.

The D.C. Circuit rejected challenges to renewable fuels standards EPA set for 2020, 2021, and 2022. Cellulosic biofuel producers argued the standards were set too low, and petroleum refiners argued they were set too high. Specifically, the biofuel producers argued EPA misinterpreted or unreasonably applied the cellulosic waiver provision when it lowered the cellulosic biofuel volumes to the "projected volume available" during each calendar year. The court held EPA's decision not to include carryover cellulosic renewable identification numbers (RINs) in calculating the project volume of available cellulosic biofuel was not a mistake because the waiver provision unambiguously excluded carryover cellulosic RINs from the “projected volume available.” The petroleum refiners separately argued EPA failed to adequately consider the "retroactivity" of the 2022 applicable volumes, arbitrarily and capriciously relied on "implied statutory targets" in setting applicable volumes, and failed to adequately explain how it balanced statutory factors. The court found EPA took sufficient care to minimize the hardship caused by its late issuance of the 2022 standards, reasonably used implied statutory targets in setting 2022 applicable volumes, and reasonably explained how the fuel volumes struck a balance between competing statutory factors. It denied the petitions for review.

The Fifth Circuit dismissed for lack of standing four states' challenge to the Securities and Exchange Commission's final rule requiring funds to disclose their votes on environmental, social, and governance matters. Texas, Louisiana, Utah, and West Virginia argued they had suffered injury as investors in funds subject to the rule and that the parens patriae doctrine vindicated their "quasi-sovereign" interest in their citizens' economic well-being. The court found the states did not establish a "substantial risk" that investors would suffer economic injury, and that there was insufficient record evidence that the rule infringed upon their quasi-sovereign interest. It dismissed for lack of standing.

The Fifth Circuit, 2-1, affirmed two district courts' orders remanding to state court lawsuits brought by Louisiana parishes against various oil and gas companies. The parishes initially sued in state court, arguing the companies violated Louisiana’s State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act by failing to obtain necessary permits for their exploration, production, and transportation operations, and violated terms of the permits they did obtain. The companies removed to federal court pursuant to the federal officer removal statute, arguing they satisfied each of the statute's requirements in light of refining contracts with the U.S. government during World War II. The district courts had granted the parishes' motions to remand, holding the companies' contract-based theory satisfied neither the "acting under" nor the "connected or associated with" requirements for federal officer removal. The circuit court found the district courts erred in holding the companies did not satisfy the "acting under" element, but agreed that the relationship between the companies' oil production and refinement activities was insufficient to satisfy the "connected or associated with" element given the lack of any contractual provision pertaining to oil production. It affirmed the orders remanding the suits to state court.

The Ninth Circuit, 2-1, reversed summary judgment for the Forest Service in a challenge to its approval of a mineral exploration project on land in Inyo National Forest. Environmental groups argued the Service violated NEPA by combining two categorical exclusions (CEs) when neither alone could be invoked to avoid an EIS or EA. The court held the two-phase project was a single proposed action, and that the Forest Service regulation enumerating CEs prohibited combining two CEs when neither CE would cover a proposed action alone. Finding that the Service's error was not harmless, it reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment for the Service and remanded with instructions for summary judgment to be granted for the groups.