SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
June, 29 2022, 11:41am EDT
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
Trump Quietly Dishes Out More Tax Breaks to Rich Investors While Slashing Food Aid for Millions
"Why would corporations spend millions on Trump's ballroom or Bitcoin? Because they're getting billions in unlegislated tax breaks," said one Democratic lawmaker.
Nov 08, 2025
The Trump administration is quietly waging an all-out regulatory war on a Biden-era corporate tax that aimed to prevent large companies from dodging their tax liabilities while reporting huge profits.
The corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT) was enacted as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, Democratic legislation that former President Joe Biden signed into law in 2022. The CAMT requires highly profitable US corporations to pay a tax of at least 15% on their so-called book profits, the figures reported to shareholders.
As the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy has explained: "Many of the special breaks that corporations use to avoid taxes work by allowing companies to report profits to the IRS that are much smaller than their book profits. Corporate leaders prefer to report low profits to the IRS (to reduce taxes) and high profits to the public (to attract investors)."
But since President Donald Trump took office in January, his administration has issued guidance and regulatory proposals designed to gut the CAMT. The effort is a boon to corporate giants and rich private equity investors at a time when the Trump administration is relentlessly attacking programs for low-income Americans, including Medicaid and nutrition assistance.
The New York Times reported Saturday that "with its various tax relief provisions, the administration is now effectively adding hundreds of billions of dollars in new breaks for big businesses and investors" on top of the trillions of dollars in tax cuts included in the Trump-GOP budget law enacted over the summer.
"The Treasury is empowered to write rules to help the IRS carry out tax laws passed by Congress," the newspaper added. "But the aggressive actions of the Trump administration raise questions about whether it is exceeding its legal authority."
Why would corporations spend millions on Trump's ballroom or bitcoin?
Because they're getting billions in unlegislated tax breaks.
We've gone from a system where the rich must pay taxes for public services, to one where they must pay the president for private favors.
— Tom Malinowski (@Malinowski) November 8, 2025
The administration's assault on the CAMT has drawn scrutiny from members of Congress.
In a September 8 letter to US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a group of Democratic lawmakers and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) warned that the administration's guidance notices "create new loopholes in the corporate alternative minimum tax for the largest and wealthiest corporations."
"Most troubling, Notice 2025-27, issued this June, allows companies to avoid CAMT if their income—under a simplified accounting method—is below $800 million," the lawmakers wrote. "The Biden administration previously set the safe harbor threshold precisely at $500 million in its proposed CAMT rule after calculating that a higher safe harbor threshold would risk exempting corporations that should be subject to CAMT under statute."
"Now, less than nine months later and with zero justification, this new guidance summarily asserts that an $800 million safe harbor will not run that risk," they continued. "We are seriously concerned that this cursory loosening of CAMT enforcement will simply allow more wealthy corporations to avoid paying their legally owed share."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Food Banks in 'Disaster Response Mode,' Supreme Court Lets Trump Pause SNAP Funds
"This is insane," said US Rep. Pramila Jayapal. "Trump is jumping through hoops to block SNAP."
Nov 08, 2025
The US Supreme Court late Friday temporarily blocked a lower court order that required the Trump administration to fully fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits as the government shutdown drags on with no end in sight.
One wrinkle in the case is that the Supreme Court order, which came after the Trump administration appealed the lower court directive, was handed down by liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Her brief order came after the Massachusetts-based US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit opted not to swiftly intervene in the case.
Jackson, who is tasked with handling emergency issues from the 1st Circuit, wrote that her administrative stay in the case will end 48 hours after the appeals court issues a ruling in the case.
The justice's order came after states across the US had already begun distributing SNAP benefits after a district court judge directed the Trump administration to release billions of dollars in funds by Friday.
"Some people woke up Friday with the money already on the debit-like EBT cards they use to buy groceries," NPR reported.
Steve Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, wrote Friday that "it may surprise folks that Justice Jackson, who has been one of the most vocal critics of the court's behavior on emergency applications from the Trump administration, acquiesced in even a temporary pause of the district court's ruling in this case."
He continued:
But as I read the order, which says a lot more than a typical “administrative stay” from the Court, Jackson was stuck between a rock and a hard place—given the incredibly compressed timing that was created by the circumstances of the case.
In a world in which Justice Jackson either knew or suspected that at least five of the justices would grant temporary relief to the Trump administration if she didn’t, the way she structured the stay means that she was able to try to control the timing of the Supreme Court’s (forthcoming) review—and to create pressure for it to happen faster than it otherwise might have. In other words, it’s a compromise—one with which not everyone will agree, but which strikes me as eminently defensible under these unique (and, let’s be clear, maddening and entirely f-ing avoidable) circumstances.
The Trump administration has fought tooth and nail to flout its legal obligation to distribute SNAP funds during the shutdown as low-income Americans grow increasingly desperate and food bank demand skyrockets.
"This is insane," US Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) wrote after the administration appealed to the Supreme Court. "Trump is jumping through hoops to block SNAP. Follow the law, fund SNAP, and feed American families."
Maura Healey, the Democratic governor of Massachusetts—one of the states that quickly moved to process SNAP benefits following the district court order—said in a statement that "Trump should never have put the American people in this position."
"Families shouldn’t have had to go hungry because their president chose to put politics over their lives," said Healey.
Feeding America, a nonprofit network of hundreds of food banks across the US, said Friday that food banks bought nearly 325% more food through the organization's grocery purchase program during the week of October 27 than they did at the same time last year.
Donations to food banks, which were underresourced even prior to the shutdown, have also skyrocketed. The head of a Houston food bank said the organization is in "disaster response mode."
"Across the country, communities are feeling the real, human impact the shutdown is having on their neighbors and communities,” said Linda Nageotte, president and chief operating officer at Feeding America. "Families, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities are showing strength through the hardship, and their communities are standing beside them—giving their time and money, and advocating so no one faces hunger alone.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Protesters at 100+ Campuses Tell Trump 'Hands Off Higher Ed!'
"We're not only out to defeat Trump, but to also win a vision for affordability, security, and freedom for our generation—both in higher education, and in our democracy," said one student organizer.
Nov 07, 2025
Students and professors at over 100 universities across the United States on Friday joined protests against President Donald Trump's sweeping assault on higher education, including a federal funding compact that critics call "extortion."
Crafted in part by billionaire financier Marc Rowan, Trump's Compact for Excellence in Higher Education was initially presented to a short list of prestigious schools but later offered to other institutions as a way to restore or gain priority access to federal funding.
The compact requires signatories to commit to "transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas," while also targeting trans student-athletes and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.
"The attacks on higher ed are attacks on truth, freedom, and our future. We're organizing to protect campuses as spaces for learning, not control—for liberation, not censorship," said Brianni Davillier, a student organizer with Public Citizen, which is among the advocacy groups and labor unions supporting the Students Rise Up movement behind Friday's demonstrations.
BREAKING: Students and faculty from across NYC have come together to tell Apollo CEO Marc Rowan that it’s going to be a lot harder than he thinks for billionaire greed to destroy higher education.
[image or embed]
— Sunrise Movement (@sunrisemvmt.bsky.social) November 7, 2025 at 11:43 AM
At the Community College of Philadelphia, protesters stressed that "higher education research saves lives." Duke University demonstrators carried signs that called for protecting academic freedom and transgender students. Roughly 10 miles away, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, they unfurled a banner that read, "Stand for Students | Reject Trump's Compact."
Professors from multiple schools came together for a rally at Central Connecticut State University, according to Connecticut Post.
"The compact would require universities submit to a system of government surveillance and policing meant to abolish departments that the government disapproves of, promote certain viewpoints over others, restrict the ability of university employees to express themselves on any major issue of the day," said James Bhandary-Alexander, a Yale Law School professor and member of the university's American Association of University Professors (AAUP) executive committee.
AAUP, also part of the coalition backing the protest movement, said on social media Friday: "Trump and Marc Rowan's loyalty oath compact is [trash]!! Out with billionaires and authoritarians in higher ed! Our universities belong to the students and higher ed workers!"
Protesters urged their school leaders to not only reject Trump's compact—which some universities have already publicly done—but also focus on other priorities of campus communities.
At the University of Kansas, provost Barbara Bichelmeyer confirmed last month to The University Daily Kansan that KU will not sign the compact. However, students still demonstrated on Friday.
"They did say 'no' but that's like the bare minimum," said Cameron Renne, a leader with the KU chapters of the Sunrise Movement and Young Democratic Socialists of America. "We're hoping to get the administration to hear us and at least try to cooperate with us on some of our demands."
According to The University Daily Kansan, "Renne said the groups are also pushing for divestment from fossil fuels, improvements in campus maintenance, and the removal of restrictions on gender ideology."
Some schools have declined to sign on to the compact but reached separate agreements with the Trump administration. As the Guardian reported Friday:
At Brown University in Rhode Island—one of the first institutions to reach a settlement with the Trump administration earlier this year—passersby were invited to endorse a banner listing a series of demands by dipping their hands in paint and leaving their print, while a group of faculty members nearby lectured about the history of autocracy.
"Trump came to our community thinking we could be bullied out of our freedom," said Simon Aron, a sophomore and co-president of Brown Rise Up. "He was wrong."
Brown isn't the only Ivy League school to strike a deal with Trump; so have Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania, the alma mater of both Rowan and Trump. Cornell University followed suit on Friday amid nationwide demonstrations.
"November 7th is only the start," said Kaden Ouimet, another student organizer with Public Citizen. "We're building a movement of students, faculty, and campus workers to demand our colleges do not comply with the Trump regime, and its authoritarian campus compact."
"We know that to fully take on autocracy, we have to take on the material conditions that gave rise to it," the organizer added. "That is why we're not only out to defeat Trump, but to also win a vision for affordability, security, and freedom for our generation—both in higher education, and in our democracy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular