A district court denied summary judgment for builder and fossil fuel groups in a challenge to New York statutory amendments prohibiting installation of fossil fuel equipment and systems in certain new buildings. The groups argued the amended statutes were preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) because they amounted to a regulation on the energy use of fossil fuel equipment, including appliances covered by EPCA, and did not qualify for any of the waiver conditions enumerated in the Act. The court found the statutes did not concern the energy use of covered products and were outside the scope of EPCA's preemption. It further held EPCA had nothing to say about what the statutes can regulate, even if those regulations happen to affect the availability to New York consumers of certain covered products.

A district court dismissed a lawsuit brought by a fishing group challenging NMFS' adoption of an amendment to a fisheries management plan (FMP) for salmon fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the coast of Alaska. The group argued the amendment violated the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) because it defined "fishery" to include only those salmon in the federal waters of Cook Inlet. It also argued the amendment's definition of "optimum yield" violated the MSA because NMFS was obligated to set optimum yield for any harvest of Cook Inlet salmon, whether it occurs in state or federal waters. The court found the MSA did not require NMFS to adopt an FMP that included waters outside the EEZ, and that it permitted NMFS to define a fishery based on a category of fish capable of management as a unit, and the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon constituted such a category. The group further argued the amendment violated National Standards 2, 3, and 10 under the MSA. The court found NMFS did not violate Standard 2 by adopting a definition different than the one recommended by its SAFE Team, did not violate Standard 3 because it provided a rational basis for determining that a single management of Cook Inlet salmon throughout their range was not practicable, and complied with Standard 10. It dismissed the suit.

A district court granted in part and denied in part summary judgment for conservation groups in a challenge to FWS' approval of a watershed restoration project in the Mattamuskett National Wildlife Refuge. The groups argued FWS violated the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act and NEPA when it approved the project involving use of toxic algaecide to treat cyanobacteria in Lake Mattamuskett, because it failed to conduct a compatibility determination, failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, conducted inadequate analysis of environmental effects, and failed to prepare an EIS. The court found FWS should have prepared a compatibility determination, that the EA failed to adequately analyze impacts and failed to consider a range of reasonable alternatives, and that FWS should have prepared an EIS. It vacated the EA and FONSI and held an EIS must be prepared if FWS wants to continue.

A district court granted in part environmental groups' motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit concerning their 2017 petition to FWS to revise the critical habitat for the endangered Mount Graham red squirrel. The groups argued FWS' delay in resolving their petition was "unreasonable" in violation of the APA. FWS filed a cross-motion, arguing its 12-month finding met ESA requirements and that APA claims were precluded because there was a remedy available under the ESA. The court found the fact that FWS had met its duty under the ESA did not mean the groups had no recourse under the APA, and concluded that the six factors used to determine whether a delayed discrete action is unreasonable weighed in favor of the groups. Finding that FWS' delay in deciding the petition on the merits was unreasonable, the court ordered FWS to provide a response to the petition by January 30, 2027, either through a proposed rule to revise critical habitat or a final decision denying the petition.

A district court denied summary judgment for environmental groups in a challenge to the Bureau of Reclamation's application of provisions of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act governing certain kinds of contracts for water delivery from the federal Central Valley Project. The groups argued the Bureau had a duty to perform NEPA review before converting the disputed contracts from water service contracts to permanent, accelerated repayment contracts, and that its conversion of the contracts without the requisite review violated the APA. They also argued the conversions directly or indirectly impact ESA-listed species and their critical habitats and that the Bureau violated the ESA by approving them without first consulting with FWS and/or NMFS. The court agreed with and adopted the Bureau's interpretation that the WIIN Act requires contract conversion upon request and strips the Bureau of discretion to modify any contractual rights other than those related to the financial terms specifically addressed in the Act. It denied summary judgment for the groups and granted the Bureau's cross-motion.

A district court granted in part and denied in part the Navy's motion to dismiss a lawsuit concerning a decades-long radioactive waste cleanup at a naval shipyard in San Francisco. An environmental group argued that the Navy violated the cleanup agreement by rejecting initial strontium samples and switching sampling methods, failed to perform its non-discretionary duty to conduct reviews every five years, and failed to adhere to CERCLA guidance in the fifth five-year review. The court granted the Navy's motion with respect to the first and third claims, but denied it as to the second claim because it alleged a current failure—the Navy's "current policy of shirking a nondiscretionary duty created by CERCLA."

A district court dismissed a lawsuit brought by Kansas landowners and the city of Rossville challenging construction of a nearby large-scale industrial solar power project. The plaintiffs argued tax credits provided under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) incentivized the project, and sought to enjoin the Treasury Department from honoring the credits until a renewable energy project claiming them undergoes NEPA review; they also sought to enjoin Jackson County, where the project is being proposed, from continuing to consider draft zoning regulations that would allow construction of a solar power plant until a NEPA-style review is done for the project. The Department and the county moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court found plaintiffs lacked standing due to a mismatch between their environmental concerns tied to construction of the project and the IRA tax credits and draft regulations, and that they failed to state a claim because they did not plausibly allege the substantial federal control and responsibility necessary to trigger NEPA review.

A district court denied a shrimping advocacy group's motion for summary judgment in a challenge to NMFS' 2019 rule requiring turtle excluder devices on skimmer trawl vessels greater than 40 feet in length operating in inshore waters. The group argued the agency failed to justify revoking the prior tow time exemption, disregarded the reliance interests of Louisiana shrimpers and the costs and benefits of the rule, and failed to demonstrate that there was incidental take occurring in Louisiana inshore waters. It also argued the rule violated the Commerce Clause and implicated the "major questions doctrine." The court found NMFS adequately explained its decision to revoke the prior tow time exemption, adequately considered shrimpers' purported reliance interests, and that observer data confirmed sea turtles are captured in Louisiana's inshore waters. It further found the rule did not violate the Commerce Clause nor implicate the major questions doctrine because Congress clearly delegated to NMFS authority to administer the ESA and the rule was a result of that. It denied summary judgment for the group and granted NMFS' cross-motion.

A district court granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss a challenge to federal agencies' approval of a construction and operations plan for a wind project off the coast of Maryland and Delaware. A Maryland city, nearby communities, industry groups, businesses, advocacy groups, and others sued the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, NMFS, and DOI, arguing their final agency actions contravened the APA by violating the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), NEPA, the ESA, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The agencies moved for partial dismissal; the developer intervened and moved to dismiss. The court found the plaintiffs adequately pleaded OCSLA, NEPA, MMPA, and NHPA claims, but failed to state viable claims under the MBTA and CZMA. It granted the agencies' and developer's motions to dismiss plaintiffs' MBTA and CZMA claims, but denied the developer's motion to dismiss the remaining claims.

The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal of environmental groups' challenge to BLM's approval of more than 4,000 applications for permits to drill oil and gas wells on public land in the Permian and Powder River Basins. The groups argued BLM violated NEPA by failing to adequately consider the wells' climate and environmental justice impacts, violated the ESA by failing to properly consult with FWS and NMFS, and violated FLPMA by failing to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands. Oil and gas industry associations and companies intervened and moved to dismiss for lack of standing. A district court granted the motion, holding the groups had only claimed a geographic nexus to self-defined areas within which their members lived, worked, and recreated in and thus failed to assert “any individual member’s geographic nexus to any specific wells or drilling sites.” The appellate court found the groups failed to sufficiently link their asserted injuries to BLM's approvals, and affirmed dismissal.