IN case you missed it...

• Date: 01 April 2022

42022ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 52 ELR 10331

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 February 2022. They

are listed under the following categories: Climate Change, Governance, Natural Resources, and Wildlife. The summaries

are then arranged alphabetically by case name wit hin each category. To access ELR's entire collection of court cases and

summaries, visit https://www.elr.info/judicial.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County v. Suncor

Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., No. 19-1330, 52 ELR 20020 (10th Cir.

Feb. 8, 2022). e Tenth Circ uit armed a district court’s or-

der remanding to state cour t a climate liability lawsuit agai nst

fossil fuel companies. Municipalities in Colorado argued in

state court that they faced substantial and rising costs from

the threat of climate change, to which the companies had

substantially contributed, and sought compensation to cover

such costs. e companies removed the case to federal court

on “federal ocer” grounds, among others, and the munici-

palities subsequently moved to remand for lack of federa l sub-

ject matter jurisdiction. e district court granted the mo-

tion, rejecting all seven of the compa nies’ grounds for remov-

al and remanding to state court. e appellate court limited

its review to the federal ocer removal claim and concluded

the companies failed to establish grounds for removal. e

U.S. Supreme Court subsequently claried that jurisdiction

extended to all grounds advanced for federal jurisdiction in

this insta nce, and vacated and remanded the appellate court’s

decision. On remand, the appellate court concluded that

none of the grounds the companies asser ted for removal were

sucient to establish federal jur isdiction over the municipali-

ties’ state-law claims. It armed the district court’s order re-

manding the suit to state cour t.

Louisiana v. Biden, No. 2:21-CV-01074, 52 ELR 20022

(W.D. La. Feb. 11, 2022). A district court granted states’

motion to preliminarily enjoin federal agencies from imple-

menting the Biden Administration’s interim estimates on the

social costs of greenhouse gas emissions. e states argued

the president lacked authority to promulgate and enforce the

estimates or to consider global e ects in domestic policymak-

ing; that the est imates were based on a fundamentally awed

methodology that did not tak e into account statutory consid-

erations and ignored best regulatory practices; and that the

estimates violated the Energy Policy and Conservation Act,

the CAA, NEPA, the Mineral Leasing Act, and the Outer

Continental Shelf Lands Ac t. e court found that the states

had demonstrated multiple, independently sucient grounds

to vacate the estimate a nd thus had shown a strong likelihood

of success on the merits. It granted the motion for prelimi-

nary injunc tion.

Sagoonick v. Alaska, No. S-17297, 52 ELR 20 018 (Alaska Jan.

28, 2022). e Alaska Supreme Court armed, 3-2, a lower

court’s dismissal of a climate liability lawsuit brought aga inst

the state of Alaska. Alaskans argued the state’s natural re-

source development was contributing to climate change and

adversely aecting their lives. e lower court dismissed the

suit, concluding plaintis r aised nonjusticiable political ques-

tions better left to the other branches of government. e

high court found th at it was impossible to grant the requested

injunctive relief—mandating t hat the state develop a climate

recovery plan to stabilize the climate—without infringing

on an area constitutionally committed to the legislature and

supplanting other branches’ judgments about the balance of

development, management, conservation, and environmenta l

protection. It armed dismissa l of the suit.

GOVERNANCE

Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. International Develop-

ment Finance Corp., No. 21-cv-1491 (CRC), 52 ELR 20023

(D.D.C. Feb. 11, 2022). A district court dismissed environ-

mental groups’ challenge to the International Development

Finance Corp’s (DFC’s) 2020 rule exempting itself from the

Sunshine Act. e groups cha llenged the rule under the APA

and the Sunshine Act itsel f, and sought an order declaring the

DFC subject to the Sunshine Act and enjoining the agency

from conducting meetings out of the public eye. e DFC

moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a

claim. e court found the groups had established informa-

tional standing but that the DFC did not meet the Sunshine

Act’s denition of an “agency,” and dismissed the suit.

Young v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, No.

21-2623 (TJK), 52 ELR 20024 (D.D.C. Feb. 16, 2022). A

district court denied two former EPA science advisors’ mo-

tion to preliminarily halt the activities of the Agency’s Clean

Air Scientic Advisory Committee. e advisors argued the

committee violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act’s

requirement that memberships be “fairly balanced” because

there was no “industry representative” on the committee,

and that one of them would suer irreparable harm—the in-

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