In case you missed it...

• Date: 01 February 2022

22022ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 52 ELR 10153

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT . . .

In the Courts

"In the Courts" contains full summaries of court cases reported in ELR Update during the month of December 2021. They

are listed under the following categories: Clima te Change, Governance, Land Use, Natural Resources, Water, and Wild-

life. The summaries are then arranged alphabe tically by case name within each category. To access ELR's entire collection

of court cases and summaries, visit https://www.elr.info/judicial.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Ass’n v. Environmental Protec-

tion Agency, No. 16-1430, 51 ELR 20196 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 12,

2021). e D.C. Circuit granted a trade group’s petition to

review a 2016 rule issued by EPA and the National Highway

Trac Safety Administration that set greenhouse gas emis-

sions and fuel eciency standards for medium- and heavy-

duty engines and vehicles. e g roup challenged the agencies’

authority to regulate heavy-duty trailers under the rule. e

court found that trailers were not motor vehicles under the

CAA be cause they had no motor and were not self-propelled.

It further found that trailers were not subject to the fuel ef-

ciency improvement program under the Energy Indepen-

dence and Security Act because they did not use fuel and

thus did not have fuel economy. e court therefore granted

the petition and vacated all portions of the rule that applied

to trailers.

GOVERNANCE

AquAlliance v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, No. 21-

632 (JEB), 51 ELR 20203 (D.D.C. Dec. 8, 2021). A district

court granted sum mary judgment for the Bureau of Reclama-

tion in a FOIA lawsuit brought by a company seeking sum-

maries of certain water transfers. e company requested a

summary of tr ansfers taking place in 2 020 under the Bureau’s

and San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority’s Long-

Term Water Transfer program, listing what the summary

should contain. e Bureau determined no such summary

existed in its records, but said it would compile and make

available certain information regarding water transfers later

in the year. e company led suit, ass erting that t he Bureau

should have conducted a more in-depth search of its records

for the information. e court found that while documents

might exist that contain some of the sought information, the

company did not describe what they could be and conceded

that they were not summaries. Moreover, to the extent that

the company would like the Bureau to “create” a summary

using this information, it is well established that agencies are

under no obligation to do so. e court granted the Bureau’s

motion for summary judgment.

Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Environ-

mental Protection Agency, No. 20-422, 51 ELR 20201 (2d

Cir. Nov. 29, 2021). e Second Circuit reversed in part and

vacated in part a district court ruling that ordered EPA to

disclose records pursuant to a FOIA request related to a for-

mer Agency ocial’s role in pesticide policymaking. An en-

vironmental group submitted FOIA requests for the records,

and EPA invoked the deliberative process privilege to prevent

disclosure of most of them. e group led suit, and the dis-

trict court ordered the Agency to produce 28 of the records

it withheld. e appellate court found that 11 of the records

were protected by the deliberative process privilege because

they reected deliberations over how to communicate with

people outside the Agency about existing policies and thus

involved “the formulation or exercise of policy-oriented judg-

ment,” but that it could not ascertain the remaining records’

deliberative character from the record. It reversed the district

court’s decision denying EPA summary judgment with re-

spect to the 11 records, vacated its order requiring the Agenc y

to disclose the other records, and rema nded to the Agency for

further proceedings.

LAND USE

Alaska v. United States Department of Agriculture, No. 17-

5260, 51 ELR 20197 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 16, 2021). e D.C.

Circuit dismissed as moot Alaska’s challenge to the Forest

Service’s 2001 Roadless Rule. e challenge centered on the

Roadless Rule’s impact on the Tongass National Forest, which

USDA exempted from the rule in 2020, but the state argued

it should be allowed to proceed because t he exemption might

be repealed and because of the rule’s ongoing application to

the Chugach National Forest. e court found it inappropri-

ate to speculate about future actions by policymakers to de-

termine whether the rule would be reapplied to the Tongass,

and that the state failed to show what harm it faced due to

the rule’s application to the Chugach. It dismissed Alaska’s

challenge as moot.

Copyright © 2022 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120.