The Tenth Circuit reversed a district court decision denying a challenge to the Forest Service's decision to open new domestic sheep grazing allotments in Rio Grande National Forest. An environmental group argued the allotments posed a high risk to local populations of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, which are vulnerable to catching diseases from domestic sheep, and that the Service's approval violated NEPA. The district court determined the Service did not violate NEPA and denied summary judgment for the group. The appellate court found the Service violated NEPA by relying on local factors and project design criteria to supplant the "risk of contact model" result and failing to take a hard look at cumulative impacts to neighboring bighorn sheep herds. It reversed the district court's decision and remanded to the district court to determine the appropriate remedy.

A district court temporarily enjoined a land exchange between the U.S. government and a copper mining company concerning 2,422 acres of land in Tonto National Forest. A community group argued the land transfer, which includes a sacred Apache burial ground, would violate its and its members' First and Fifth Amendment rights, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and would breach the government's trust and fiduciary duties to the Western Apache people; it moved to preliminarily enjoin the transfer. The court denied the motion, finding the group had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, and the Ninth Circuit subsequently affirmed. The group then sought a temporary injunction prohibiting the government from transferring the land pending its Supreme Court appeal. The district court found the balance of equities tipped sharply in the group's favor, that the group established a likelihood of irreparable harm should the transfer proceed, and that it presented serious questions on the merits that warranted the Supreme Court's scrutiny should it agree to grant certiorari. It enjoined the government from publishing the final EIS and conveying the land until the Supreme Court denies the petition for certiorari or issues a judgment if the petition is granted.

A district court granted summary judgment for an environmental group in a challenge to FWS' 2023 12-month finding that Joshua trees were not warranted for listing under the ESA for the "foreseeable future." The group argued FWS violated the ESA because it failed to use best available science, its definition of "foreseeable future" was arbitrary, and its decision that the trees were not threatened throughout a significant portion of their range was arbitrary. The court found FWS' "foreseeable future" definition was not established by an explanation rationally connected to the data, that the Service did not use the best available science regarding the threat of climate change nor did it provide a rational explanation as to why climate change alone might not cause the trees to become threatened or endangered, and that it should have considered climate change's effect on habitat suitability in relation to young trees in its decision regarding the significant portion of the trees' range. It granted summary judgment for the group and denied FWS' cross-motion.