June, 29 2022, 11:41am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Melissa Hornbein, Western Environmental Law Center, hornbein@westernlaw.org
Lawsuit Challenges Biden's Resumption of Oil, Gas Leasing on Public Lands
Climate and conservation groups filed a lawsuit today challenging the Biden administration's resumption of oil and gas leasing on public lands, the first auction since the president paused leasing shortly after taking office.
WASHINGTON
Climate and conservation groups filed a lawsuit today challenging the Biden administration's resumption of oil and gas leasing on public lands, the first auction since the president paused leasing shortly after taking office.
The lawsuit challenges the Department of the Interior and U.S. Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) approval of today's oil and gas lease sales in Wyoming. These lease auctions will be immediately followed by sales in Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Oklahoma. Collectively, these sales will open more than 140,000 acres of public land to fossil-fuel production.
"Overwhelming scientific evidence shows us that burning fossil fuels from existing leases on federal lands is incompatible with a livable climate," said Melissa Hornbein, senior attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center. "In spite of this administration's climate commitments, the Department of Interior is choosing to resume oil and gas leasing. The very least the BLM could do is acknowledge the connected nature of these six lease sales and their collective impact on federal lands and the earth's climate. Its failure to do so is an attempt to water down the climate effects of the decision to continue leasing, and is a clear abdication of BLM's responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act."
The groups assert that BLM has violated environmental laws by continuing to authorize fossil fuel extraction on public lands. The challenged lease sales are expected to result in billions of dollars in social and environmental harm, including negative impacts on public health, air and water quality, and local wildlife,such as the embattled greater sage grouse and other endangered species.
The lawsuit cites a failure of the Interior Department and BLM to uphold their responsibility under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which requires Interior to prevent "permanent impairment" and "unnecessary or undue degradation" of public lands from oil and gas development. It also calls for BLM to prepare a comprehensive environmental impact statement. That should analyze the compatibility of the predicted increased greenhouse gas emissions with the urgent need to avoid the catastrophe of 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming, rather than in piecemeal analyses.
"We're out of time and our climate can't afford any new fossil fuel developments," said Taylor McKinnon with the Center for Biological Diversity. "By leasing more of our public lands to oil companies, President Biden is breaking campaign promises and falling dangerously short of the global leadership required to avoid catastrophic climate change."
"President Biden came into office promising bold action on climate. Moving forward with these lease sales flies in the face of science and any chance for us to meet our climate goals," Dan Ritzman, director of Sierra Club's Lands, Water, Wildlife campaign. "For the sake of our environment and our future, we must transition away from the toxic fossil fuel industry that prioritizes handouts to oil and gas companies over the interests of local communities, wildlife, and conservation efforts."
Several analyses show that already producing fossil fuel fields, if fully developed, will push warming past 1.5 degrees Celsius. Avoiding such warming requires ending new investment in fossil fuel projects and phasing out production to keep as much as 40% of already developed fields in the ground.
"While people are getting gouged at the pump by greedy oil and gas companies, the Biden administration is bending over backward to give more breaks to the industry and sell public lands for fracking," said Jeremy Nichols, climate and energy program director for WildEarth Guardians. "This isn't just undermining our climate, it's undermining our nation's ability to transition away from costly fossil fuels and toward cleaner, more affordable energy."
Thousands of organizations and communities from across the U.S. have called on President Biden to halt federal fossil fuel expansion, to phase out production consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and develop new rules under long-ignored legal authorities to serve those goals.
"Continuing to sell public lands to oil companies for development flies in the face of the president's promises and climate science," said Derf Johnson, staff attorney for the Montana Environmental Information Center. "It's time to be brave and take bold action, rather than bowing to the demands of one of the most damaging and profitable industries on the planet."
"While the pain at the gas pump is real, selling more of our public lands to Big Oil will not lower prices, but will lock the U.S. into decades of GHG-spewing projects with costly and damaging, long-term climate and water impacts to our communities, economy, and environment," said Marc Yaggi, CEO of Waterkeeper Alliance. "To preserve any chance of mitigating the ongoing climate catastrophe, President Biden must honor his pledge to ban all new leasing of our public lands."
The administration's promised comprehensive climate review of the federal oil and gas programs under Executive Order 14008 culminated in a report released the day after Thanksgiving that barely mentioned climate, presumes more climate-incompatible oil and gas leasing, and suggests modest economic reforms proposed by the Government Accountability Office decades ago. .
Conservation groups earlier this month filed a lawsuit challenging the Biden administration's 3,525 drilling permit approvals in the Permian and Powder River basins. The Biden administration approved 34% more drilling during its first year than the Trump administration, according to federal data analyzed by the Center for Biological Diversity.
Climate pollution from federal fossil fuels is hastening the extinction crisis while impacting communities nationwide with extreme weather, wildfires, regional aridification and river drying, droughts, heat waves and rising seas. Warming and pollution from federal fossil fuel extraction harms everyone, and disproportionately harms Black, Brown and Indigenous communities, a fact the Biden administration has repeatedly acknowledged.
"The public is absorbing substantial economic and ecological costs from fossil-fuel-driven climate disruption, including massive fires, biodiversity loss, superstorms, and extended drought," said Erik Molvar, executive director of Western Watersheds Project. "Federal minerals belong to the public and should be managed in the public interest, which clearly dictates keeping federal fossil fuel deposits safely buried underground.
The June lease sales come amid record oil and gas industry profit-taking. The watchdog organization Accountable.US reported in February that Shell, Chevron, BP and Exxon made more than $75.5 billion in profits in 2021, some of their highest profits in the past decade. Major oil companies also reported billions in profits in the first quarter of 2022.
Contacts:
Melissa Hornbein, Western Environmental Law Center, 406-471-3173 hornbein@westernlaw.org
Natasha Leger, Citizens for a Healthy Community, 970-399-9700, natasha@chc4you.org
Jeremy Nichols, WildEarth Guardians, 303-437-7663, jnichols@wildearthguaridans.org
Medhini Kumar, Sierra Club, medhini.kumar@sierraclub.org
Erik Molvar, Western Watersheds Project, 307-399-7910, emolvar@westernwatersheds.org
Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, 801-300-2414 tmckinnon@biologicaldiversity.org
Lori Harrison, Waterkeeper Alliance, 703-216-8565, lharrison@waterkeeper.org
Derf Johnson, Montana Environmental Information Center, 406-581-4634, djohnson@meic.org
The Western Environmental Law Center uses the power of the law to safeguard the public lands, wildlife, and communities of the American West in the face of a changing climate. We envision a thriving, resilient West, abundant with protected public lands and wildlife, powered by clean energy, and defended by communities rooted in an ethic of conservation.
(541) 485-2471LATEST NEWS
As Hegseth Touts Autonomous Warfare Command, Human Rights Expert Pushes Civilian Protections
Responding to other recent remarks from the Pentagon chief, the expert warned that “a sole focus on achieving maximum lethality is inherently incompatible with civilian protection.”
Apr 29, 2026
As the US military accelerates its adoption of autonomous weapons systems amid a growing global artificial intelligence arms race, one expert told Common Dreams on Wednesday that "greater action needs to be taken urgently" to protect civilians and ensure meaningful human control over rapidly developing technologies.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told congressional lawmakers Wednesday during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the proposed $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget for 2027 that the military will soon have a new "sub-unified command" dedicated to autonomous warfare.
Hegseth, who advocates “maximum lethality” for US forces, has expressed disdain for what he called “stupid rules of engagement” designed to minimize civilian harm. He has overseen the dismantling of efforts meant to mitigate wartime harm to civilians—hundreds of thousands of whom have been killed in US-led wars during this century, according to experts.
This "maximum lethality" ethos, combined with AI-powered systems allowing for exponentially faster and more numerous target selection, has raised concerns that have been underscored by actions including Israel Defense Forces massacres in Gaza and Lebanon, and US attacks like the cruise missile strike on a school in Iran that killed 155 children and staff.
"A sole focus on achieving maximum lethality is inherently incompatible with civilian protection," Verity Coyle, deputy director of Human Rights Watch's (HRW) crisis, conflict, and arms division, told Common Dreams. "If the United States truly seeks to protect civilians, it should forgo this limited focus and ensure it has guardrails in place that assess the proportionality of its actions and guarantee a distinction between civilians and combatants."
"Under international humanitarian law, civilian protection requires that military actions abide by the principles of distinction and proportionality," Coyle noted. "In other words, military actors must distinguish between civilians and combatants and ensure that the resulting harm to civilians from their actions would not be excessive in comparison to the perceived military gain."
Experts on lethal autonomous weapons systems—commonly called "killer robots"—stress the need for meaningful human control. However, with industry-backed efforts afoot to ban state and local governments from placing guardrails on AI development, retaining such control could become increasingly difficult as the technology advances.
"The lack of serious guardrails... shows a troubling lack of concern for these real and immediate risks to civilians both in the United States and abroad," Coyle said. "While we have seen some Congress members and state legislators express concern over these developments, greater action needs to be taken urgently."
Asked about the "if we don't build it, they will" mentality of many US proponents of unchecked AI development that is reminiscent of the Cold War nuclear arms race, Coyle said the United States is ignoring its "ability to set the global agenda and international humanitarian law norms."
"As we see greater integration of AI in the military domain and resulting civilian harm, we need strong international leadership to respond to these threats, not states relinquishing their responsibilities," she asserted.
Coyle continued:
Throughout [HRW's] decades of work in banning weapons that cause indiscriminate civilian harm, including the Mine Ban Treaty and Convention on Cluster Munitions, we have seen that even when some major military powers object to new international law, other states are able to band together and create new norms that major military powers eventually abide by. In this moment, the United States needs to decide if it will stand up for the principles of civilian protection and a rules-based order, or if it will walk away from the system it helped create and that has served to protect civilians for several decades.
There is also a danger that companies will proceed with risky AI weapons development, both in pursuit of profit and out of fear of getting left behind if they don't push forward. For example, Anthropic—maker of the AI assistant Claude—lost a $200 million Pentagon contract and is facing a government blacklist and legal battles after the company refused to loosen safety restrictions on autonomous weapons and surveillance.
Meanwhile, OpenAI, which makes the generative AI platform ChatGPT, rewrote its “no military use” policy to allow “national security” applications of its products, opening the door to lucrative Pentagon contracts.
Asked what civil society can do now to rein in reckless AI development, Coyle said that while HRW remains "focused on educating decision-makers and the public," there are "clear steps states can take, including supporting an international legally binding instrument on autonomous weapons systems and regulating the military use of AI."
"Through the Stop Killer Robots Campaign—a coalition of 270+ organizations focused on banning and regulating autonomous weapons systems and AI in the military domain—we are working globally to address these challenges," she noted.
While loss of human control over AI systems still appears to still be well over the horizon, Coyle said that "every day we see a world inching closer to this reality."
"Our message to states is that now is the time to take immediate, robust action to address this risk and protect civilians before it is too late," she stressed.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Dangerous and Shameful': 42 House Democrats Help GOP Send Trump Spying Bill to Senate
"It was these Democrats' responsibility to stand up against this administration, and they voted to stand down instead," said one campaigner.
Apr 29, 2026
Dozens of Democrats in the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives helped the GOP send a key spying bill to the Senate on Wednesday, earning sharp condemnation from the diverse movement that has called for privacy reforms.
The House voted 235-191 in favor of the bill released last week by Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who has been trying for months to get an extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to President Donald Trump's desk.
FISA's Section 702 allows the US government to surveil electronic communications of noncitizens located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information, without a warrant. However, Americans' data is also swept up, and civil society, along with some lawmakers from both major parties, has demanded reforms to prevent further abuse by federal agencies.
In the lead-up to the vote, progressives such as Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) warned that "this bill has no meaningful reforms to stop warrantless surveillance, directly undermining the Fourth Amendment" to the US Constitution, which is supposed to protect Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Another "Squad" member, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), took to the House floor to blast Section 702 as "a dangerous mass surveillance tool" that "has been used to spy on Black Lives Matter protesters, members of Congress, journalists, and more."
However, 42 Democrats—including House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Jim Himes (Conn.)—still joined most House Republicans in advancing the legislation.
"It's incredibly disappointing the House approved this measure," said Jake Laperruque, deputy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology's Security and Surveillance Project, in a statement. "This bill is empty calories through and through. It contains no warrant for querying Americans' messages, and no meaningful reforms of any kind. The razor-thin procedural vote this afternoon makes clear that there's an appetite for reform, but House leadership took meaningful reforms off the menu."
"There is nothing in this bill that would have prevented the abuses of FISA 702 we've already seen—snooping on lawmakers, protesters, and campaign donors—and there is nothing that would stop even worse abuses in the future. A vote for this bill was a vote to give the FBI and other intelligence agencies a three-year blank check for surveillance abuse."
Hajar Hammado, senior policy adviser at Demand Progress—which helped convene over 100 artificial intelligence, civil rights, and other progressive groups pressuring Congress to include privacy protections in any renewal bill for the spying power—took aim at the House Democrats who supported the legislation.
"The 42 Democratic votes to advance Speaker Johnson and Donald Trump's surveillance agenda are dangerous and shameful," she declared. "These Democrats defied their constituents and common sense to undercut meaningful privacy reforms in the House and instead voted to hand over sweeping spy powers to the Trump administration," she stressed. "This means continuing warrantless backdoor searches and allowing an increasing number of federal agencies to exploit the data broker loophole to supercharge AI and fuel mass domestic surveillance."
Hammado said that "their vote today has major consequences, as even 22 Republicans put principles over politics and voted against renewing FISA without warrant protections. It was these Democrats' responsibility to stand up against this administration and they voted to stand down instead."
While stressing that "no administration should have these powers," Free Press Action advocacy director Jenna Ruddock directed attention at "the champions for a clean extension of Section 702 in the Trump administration in particular," including the president's homeland security adviser, Stephen Miller.
"Stephen Miller has advocated against reforms to Section 702, claiming it is critical to his and Trump’s homeland security agenda, even as members of the administration refer to political opponents as 'enemies within,'" she noted. "Today, 42 Democrats joined 192 Republicans to co-sign Donald Trump and Stephen Miller's domestic surveillance agenda, jeopardizing the civil rights and liberties of every person in the United States."
Zeteo News reporter Prem Thakker pointed out that House "Democratic leadership did not whip their members, enabling them to vote with Republicans and give Trump the surveillance powers."
While calling out the House Democrats who backed the bill, campaigners also set their sights on the Senate, where Punchbowl News reporter Anthony Adragna predicted that "it's DOA," or dead on arrival. Republicans have a slim majority in the chamber and, due to its rules, need at least some Democratic support to pass most bills, including this one.
A key issue is the central bank digital currency ban included in the House bill. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) told reporters on Wednesday that he may try to pass a 45-day extension instead. After a recent short-term extension, the spying authority is set to expire Thursday night.
"Now the fight moves to the Senate, where privacy champions in both parties are gearing up to try and stop this reckless giveaway to the surveillance state," Hammado said. She urged members of the upper chamber to join "bipartisan reformers" like Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) "in voting against any FISA measure that lacks real reforms like a warrant requirement to close the backdoor search and data broker loopholes."
Laperruque similarly said that "we hope senators will stand strong and reject this dangerous proposal."
Ruddock highlighted that "there is bipartisan legislation already introduced in both the House and Senate that would make desperately needed reforms to government surveillance powers."
"The Senate should reject the fake reforms in the current House bill and demand a vote on real reforms to Section 702, including a warrant requirement, and closing the data broker loophole," she said. "Our constitutional rights depend on it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Heinrich, Booker Push 'No Immunity for Glyphosate' Bill as Supreme Court Weighs Monsanto Case
Sen. Cory Booker said it "will overturn President Trump's executive order that prioritizes pesticide company profits over public health and ensure that people who have gotten cancer from glyphosate can seek justice."
Apr 29, 2026
On the heels of the US Supreme Court hearing arguments in Monsanto Company v. Durnell, Sens. Martin Heinrich and Cory Booker on Wednesday introduced legislation intended to overturn President Donald Trump's executive order mandating production of the highly contentious weedkiller at the center of that case.
"Since my time serving as a City Council member in Newark, I have seen firsthand the devastating harm caused by toxic chemicals in our communities," Booker (D-NJ) said in a statement. "That is why, this week at a rally in front of the Supreme Court, I stood with cancer survivors, activists, and Make America Healthy Again advocates to protest against providing a liability shield to foreign corporations that are poisoning the American people."
"It is why I filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court supporting Americans who developed cancer after using a toxic pesticide in a case that will determine whether thousands harmed by glyphosate can have their day in court—and why I am a proud co-sponsor of the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act," he added, "legislation that will overturn President Trump's executive order that prioritizes pesticide company profits over public health and ensure that people who have gotten cancer from glyphosate can seek justice in federal court."
Despite Trump's campaign promise to "Make America Healthy Again," he has frequently served the pesticide industry, including by siding with Bayer—which bought Monsanto in 2018—in the case before the high court, and by signing the February order invoking the Defense Production Act for glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup.
Specifically, Trump directed US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins to ensure "a continued and adequate supply of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides." He also noted that domestic producers are required to comply with his order, and under the federal law he invoked, those doing so have broad legal immunity.
Just before Trump's order, Bayer announced a proposed settlement for the tens of thousands of people who say exposure to Roundup caused their cancer. Still, the company and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continue to claim glyphosate is safe, despite the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classifying it as probably carcinogenic to humans over a decade ago.
The case before the Supreme Court stems from a lawsuit and a resulting verdict in favor of John Durnell, a Missouri man whose blood cancer is in remission after multiple rounds of chemotherapy. The justices' decision could determine whether many others are able to continue pursuing cases against Bayer. Republicans are also pushing to include a "liability shield" for pesticide manufacturers in the next Farm Bill.
Meanwhile, Booker and Heinrich's bill states that "no federal funds may be obligated or expended to implement, administer, or enforce" Trump's glyphosate order, and "any person, or the estate, survivors, or legal representative of such person, who suffers or has suffered physical injury, illness, disease, or death caused, in whole or in part, by exposure to elemental phosphorus or a glyphosate-based herbicide manufactured, distributed, sold, or supplied within the United States, may bring a civil action in an appropriate district court of the United States against any covered entity."
Heinrich said Wednesday that "juries across the country are looking at the evidence and delivering verdicts: Exposure to glyphosate can cause cancer. The Supreme Court cannot and should not allow these verdicts to be overturned."
"My constituents' health and safety comes first. And I will not stand by while President Trump gives immunity to those who put my constituents' health and safety at risk," he added. "That’s why I’m proud to lead the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act, legislation that will restore accountability, uphold court rulings, and protect the health and well-being of families in New Mexico and across the country."
The bill is also backed by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.). Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) introduced companion legislation in February, just after Trump's order. The lead sponsors in the House of Representatives also are working to strip the immunity shield from the Farm Bill and joined Booker at "The People v. Poison" rally outside the Supreme Court on Monday.
The next day, another House Democrat, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), questioned EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin about the immunity shield in Trump's order, as well as his meeting with Bayer's CEO last year and some related internal emails.
"AOC smoked him in there," Drop Site News reporter Julian Andreone said on social media. "Red-handed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular