A district court granted FWS' motion for partial voluntary remand in a challenge to its decision to list the eastern black rail as threatened instead of endangered. Environmental groups argued FWS' decision, and related determination that designation of critical habitat for the rail was "not prudent," violated the ESA. FWS moved for remand without vacatur to permit the agency to reconsider its listing decision and further explain that decision. The court found the Service's asserted intent to revisit the challenged decision met the threshold requirement for granting voluntary remand, that its motion was neither frivolous nor made in bad faith, and that granting the motion would not unduly prejudice the groups. It granted the motion.

A district court dismissed a civil rights challenge to St. James Parish's adoption of a land use plan in 2014. Nonprofit and religious groups argued their members were residents of the Parish descended from formerly enslaved people whose civil liberties, property rights, and religious rights were violated by the Parish's plan. The groups specifically argued the Parish had maintained a discriminatory, unequal, and injurious system that deprived their members of their rights via zoning and land use decisions, in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and the Louisiana Constitution. The Parish moved to dismiss. The court held that all of the groups' claims were procedurally deficient, but "[could not] say that their claims lack[ed] a basis in fact or rel[ied] on a meritless legal theory." It dismissed the suit.

A district court granted in part and denied in part environmental groups' motion to preliminarily enjoin the state of Montana's wolf trapping and snaring season as authorized by recently approved regulations. The groups argued the regulations, which expanded both the length of the season and the geographic areas where trapping can occur, were reasonably certain to cause trapping and snaring of grizzly bears in violation of ESA §9. The court found the groups established serious questions on the merits and presented a substantial body of evidence that future takes of grizzlies in legal wolf traps were reasonably certain under Montana's current scheme. It enjoined Montana from authorizing wolf trapping and snaring in all areas included in wolf regions one through five, as well as Hill, Blaine, and Phillips Counties, except from January 1, 2024, to February 15, 2024, when it is reasonably certain that almost all grizzly bears will be in dens.

The Third Circuit denied three petitions for review in a long-running dispute over whether and to what extent state-subsidized energy resources should be subject to price mitigation in interstate capacity auctions. Energy generators and state public utilities commissions challenged FERC's acceptance of a 2021 minimum offer price rule (MOPR) filed by a regional transmission organization that scaled back a 2019 MOPR to no longer apply to renewable energy and nuclear projects that receive state support. The court concluded FERC's constructive acceptance of the 2021 MOPR was neither arbitrary nor capricious and was supported by substantial evidence in the record. It denied the petitions for review.

The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for FWS in a challenge to its biological opinion (BiOp) concerning water pumping impacts on ESA-protected species in Arizona's San Pedro River Basin. An environmental group argued the BiOp, which concluded that a conservation easement proposed to compensate for an Army garrison's pumping and use of water would have minimal effect on protected species and would not jeopardize them or adversely modify their habitats, lacked evidence to support its conclusion. A district court rejected the claim, finding it was reasonably likely that the land at issue would have been used for agricultural use but for the easement and that the Service did not err in determining the easement saved water. But the appellate court found FWS provided little evidence that the benefit from the easement would be "reasonably certain" under the relevant regulations and relied mostly on speculation to claim water savings, making its no-jeopardy determination arbitrary and capricious. It reversed summary judgment, vacated the BiOp, and remanded with instructions for FWS to reevaluate its water-savings analysis in a new BiOp.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Forest Service in a challenge to its approval of a logging project in Inyo National Forest. Environmental groups argued the Service failed to adequately consider alternatives, failed to solicit public comments following its 2018 EA, and failed to supplement its NEPA analysis following a 2020 bark beetle outbreak and subsequent abatement project. The court found the Service considered a reasonable range of alternatives, offered the public a reasonable opportunity to comment, and was not required to conduct further NEPA analysis following the outbreak. It affirmed summary judgment for the Service.

A district court denied Indigenous and environmental groups' motion for injunction pending appeal of their challenge to BLM's approval of an oil and gas development project in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. The groups initially sought to preliminarily enjoin construction through the remainder of the winter season, arguing BLM violated NEPA, the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, and the ESA. The court denied the motion, finding the groups could not show a likelihood of irreparable harm. It subsequently denied their request for vacatur of the project approval. The groups appealed and sought to enjoin all construction activities related to the project while their appeals are pending. The court found the groups did not show there was a serious question going to the merits of their claims, and concluded the balance of equities and public interest tipped sharply against injunctive relief. It denied the groups' motion.

The Ninth Circuit granted in part and denied in part environmental and public interest groups' petition to review EPA's amended pesticide registrations of streptomycin sulfate for use in combating citrus diseases. The groups argued EPA's determination that the registration would not cause "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment" was not supported by substantial evidence. The court found the evidence supported EPA's assessment of the risk that the registration would lead to antibiotic resistance, but that its assessment with respect to pollinators was incomplete and that EPA failed to provide sufficient explanation for the registration labels' suggestion that streptomycin could be used to prevent Huanglongbing disease or citrus canker. Given the seriousness of EPA's failure to comply with the ESA and FIFRA, the court vacated the amended registrations and remanded to the Agency to conduct an ESA effects determination and address the defects in its FIFRA analysis.

A district court granted in part summary judgment for environmental groups in a challenge to a National Park Service (NPS) agreement with Miami-Dade County to facilitate development of a waterpark, hotel, and retail area near the Miami Zoo. The groups argued NPS violated NEPA and the ESA by failing to undertake requisite environmental review and consultation before entering into the agreement, and sought to have it vacated. The court found that prior to execution of the agreement, the groups and FWS put NPS on notice that the development could adversely affect listed species and their habitat, yet NPS failed to consult with FWS prior to executing the agreement. Finding this to be a clear ESA §7(a)(2) violation, the court vacated and set aside the agreement.