A district court granted in part and denied in part summary judgment for conservation groups in a challenge to BLM's authorization of a lease sale for oil and gas development in Wyoming. The groups argued BLM failed to take a "hard look" at the potential environmental impacts of the Wyoming sale, as required by NEPA, and that it violated the APA by treating the Wyoming lease sale differently from five other sales and by failing to justify a sale of this magnitude in light of the mounting climate crisis and its own estimates of the steep social costs from projected greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The court agreed with the groups that BLM erred when assessing the Wyoming sale’s impact on groundwater and wildlife and explaining how its analysis of GHG emissions influenced its leasing decisions, but was not persuaded by the groups' other challenges. It granted in part and denied in part summary judgment for the groups.

A district court granted in part and denied in part summary judgment for environmental groups in a challenge to an Idaho law authorizing expanded authorization of recreational wolf trapping and snaring in the state's grizzly bear habitat. The groups argued Idaho's continued authorization and expansion of trapping and snaring was reasonably certain to cause unlawful “take” of grizzly bears in violation of ESA §9, and sought to enjoin it until Idaho obtains an incidental take permit from FWS. The court found the groups demonstrated a reasonably certain threat of imminent harm in connection with Idaho's decision to allow and expand recreational trapping and snaring of wolves in areas where grizzly bears are present and during times they are out of their dens, in violation of the ESA. It permanently enjoined Idaho from authorizing recreational gray wolf trapping and snaring on public or private land in grizzly bear habitat except when it is reasonably certain that almost all grizzly bears will be in dens—December 1 to February 28— unless an incidental take statement is obtained from FWS.

A district court granted summary judgment for the state of Texas in a challenge to the Federal Highway Administration's (FHwA's) 2023 rule requiring states to measure, report, and set declining targets for the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by vehicles using the interstate and national highway systems. Texas argued FHwA lacked authority under 23 U.S.C. §150(c)(3) to enact the rule. The court found the plain language of §150(c)(3) made clear that performance of interstate and national highway systems focused on the effectiveness of facilitating travel, commerce, and national defense, not environmental outputs of vehicles using those systems, and thus that FHwA was not authorized to enact the 2023 rule. It granted summary judgment for Texas and vacated the rule.

A district court denied outdoor recreation groups' request to halt implementation of BLM's 2023 travel management plan (TMP) closing over 300 miles of routes previously available for off-highway vehicle use on public lands within the Labyrinth/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Area in Utah. The groups sought to preliminarily enjoin BLM from enforcing the new TMP, arguing BLM violated the Appointments Clause by acting through an employee, that the route closures violated the John R. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act by impermissibly creating a buffer zone around a wilderness area, that BLM acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to respond to relevant and significant public comments and by offering explanations that were counter to evidence, and that BLM violated NEPA by failing to take a "hard look" at how the choices before it affected the environment and failing to conduct an EIS. The court found the groups failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of any claims and denied the motion for preliminary injunction.

The D.C. Circuit upheld EPA's 2022 decision to reinstate a prior waiver of federal preemption of two California regulations concerning automobile emissions under the CAA. States and fossil fuel groups challenged the regulations—a standard limiting greenhouse gas emissions and a requirement that a certain percentage of new vehicles manufactured in the state be zero emission vehicles. The groups argued EPA exceeded its statutory authority under the CAA. The states separately argued the regulations were preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and that by granting a waiver to California alone, EPA violated a constitutional requirement that the federal government treat states equally in terms of their sovereign authority. The court found the groups lacked standing to raise their CAA claim, and that the states lacked standing to raise their preemption claim, because neither set of petitioners demonstrated their claimed injuries would be redressed by a favorable decision. It did find the states had standing to raise their constitutional claim, but held that the waiver was subject to rational basis review for Commerce Clause legislation and was constitutional under that standard.

The D.C. Circuit denied an environmental group's petitions to review FERC's decision to grant time extensions for two developers to complete natural gas pipeline projects. The group argued FERC was too permissive in finding "good cause" to grant the extensions. The court found FERC followed its reasonable practice of evaluating the project sponsor’s diligence and the reasons for delay in determining whether the extension requests were supported by “good cause,” and that its decision to grant the extensions was adequately supported by the record evidence. It denied the group's petitions.