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.

In an unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for NMFS in Alaska's challenge to the Service's negative 90-day finding on the state's petition to delist the Arctic ringed seal as a threatened species under the ESA. The appellate court found NMFS reasonably determined that new climate change projections were consistent with those it considered at the time of its 2012 listing decision, reasonably declined to rely on FWS' 12-month findings about the Pacific walrus because they were not specific to the Arctic ringed seal, and did not improperly disregard new information contained in the petition about the seal's response to sea ice loss and other climate-related changes. Finding NMFS reasonably determined the petition did not present new information indicating that delisting may be warranted, the court affirmed summary judgment for the Service.

The Tenth Circuit reversed a district court ruling in challenges to BLM's 2022 amendments to its regional management plan for wild horses in southern Wyoming that changed two "herd management areas" to "herd areas." Wild horse advocacy and conservation groups argued the amendments, which reduced the population goal in two areas to zero horses and reduced the goal in another area by as much as 56%, violated the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (WHA) by functionally eliminating wild horses on public lands without considering the Act's goal, violated NEPA by disregarding reasonable alternatives, and violated FLPMA by failing to manage the land for multiple uses. The district court found BLM had not acted arbitrarily or capriciously in converting the herd management areas to herd areas, and ruled for BLM. The appellate court found that while the WHA did not require BLM to manage for wild horses to the detriment of all other uses, it did require BLM to “manage wild free-roaming horses and burros in a manner that is designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands.” BLM admitted it did not consider ecological balance when amending the plan, and thus its decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court reversed and remanded to the district court to apply the Allied-Signal factors and determine the appropriate remedy.