September, 06 2022, 01:48pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Tuesday September, 06 2022, 01:48pm EDT
Contact:
Perry Wheeler, Earthjustice, 202-792-6211, pwheeler@earthjustice.org
Melissa Hornbein, Western Environmental Law Center, 406-471-3173, hornbein@westernlaw.org
Court Rejects Wyoming, Industry Challenge to Biden Administration Postponement of Oil, Gas Lease Sales
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON - A federal judge in Wyoming affirmed the Biden administration's decisions to postpone oil and gas lease sales in early 2021, holding that the federal government has broad authority to postpone sales to address environmental concerns.
In his ruling Friday, U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl rejected arguments by industry and Wyoming and found that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) acted within its legal authority under the Mineral Leasing Act, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other laws when it postponed lease sales to ensure that it fully considered the environmental harms they could cause. The court also held that industry and Wyoming lacked standing to challenge the postponement.
"We're pleased the Judge affirmed the Department of the Interior has significant discretion to decide when to offer public oil and gas resources at lease sales. The law requires Interior to serve the public interest by analyzing and considering the environmental and social costs of leasing before holding lease sales, and that's what they did," said Bob LeResche, Powder River Basin Resource Council board member from Clearmont, Wyoming. "Last year BLM initiated a comprehensive review of the federal oil and gas program, and this is the perfect time for the Department to complete their review and fully reform the federal oil and gas program to better protect taxpayers, communities, and the environment. We call on them to do so."
In early 2021, the Biden administration issued an executive order aimed at tackling the climate crisis, which directed the Department of the Interior to temporarily pause new oil and gas leasing on federal lands and offshore waters. The pause was meant to provide the federal government an opportunity to undertake a systematic review of its oil and gas program and consider how to address its climate impacts. Before the Interior Department could decide how to implement the executive order, it was targeted in five lawsuits filed by industry trade associations and Republican-led states.
Friday's ruling came in two of those lawsuits, brought by the state of Wyoming, Western Energy Alliance (WEA), and the Petroleum Association of Wyoming. Earthjustice and the Western Environmental Law Center (WELC) intervened on behalf of 21 groups to defend the lease sale postponements and leasing pause.
"This ruling is a victory for people who cherish public lands, and the communities whose livelihoods are intertwined with these special places," said Ben Tettlebaum, senior staff attorney with The Wilderness Society. "The court rightly affirmed that our public lands are not up for a fire sale to the fossil fuel industry whenever it chooses. The Interior Department has the clear authority to manage these lands for conservation, wildlife, and the health and well-being of communities who rely on them."
"We find it reassuring that the court affirmed the Bureau of Land Management's authority to postpone oil and gas lease sales in order to make certain they adhere to the law," said Melissa Hornbein, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. "The judge called out as nonsensical the state and industry group's argument that postponing a lease to ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires a NEPA analysis of its own. This suggests any appeal of this decision will have an uphill battle in court."
The Wyoming ruling follows an August 18 ruling from the Western District of Louisiana that permanently blocked a blanket leasing pause in 13 states (not including Wyoming) that sued over the executive order in Louisiana District Court. The Louisiana ruling came one day after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a preliminary injunction previously issued by the Louisiana court, finding that it lacked adequate "specificity." Similar to the Wyoming decision, however, the August 18 Louisiana ruling appears to permit the government to postpone sales based on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other concerns.
"Given the climate crisis and its superstorms, floods, fires, and droughts, it's essential that the President have the authority to control oil and gas leasing - or deny leasing - on mineral deposits owned by the American people," said Erik Molvar, executive director with Western Watersheds Project. "Friday's ruling puts the federal government back in the driver's seat for managing federal mineral deposits and paves the way for keeping oil and gas in the ground."
"BLM has never adequately considered the impacts of its fossil fuel leasing program on climate," said Peter Hart, attorney at Wilderness Workshop. "Courts across the country have found BLM's leasing decisions illegal based on this failure. This opinion confirms that BLM doesn't have to continue selling leases that don't comply with law. Instead, the agency should STOP and consider the real impacts of more leasing. After that, we may all agree: 'it isn't worth it!'"
"The climate induced disasters keep stacking up, from mega droughts and catastrophic floods to wildfires and unhealthy air. Business as usual is not working," said Anne Hedges, director of policy for the Montana Environmental Information Center. "The President simply must have the ability to take the time necessary to find a better path forward. People's lives, livelihoods and our public lands depend on getting this right. This pause is a small step in the right direction."
"The court reaffirmed the federal government's long-standing obligation to protect the environment and public interest, not just sell off lands when demanded by oil and gas companies," said Michael Freeman, senior attorney with Earthjustice's Rocky Mountain Office. "We hope the Biden administration will exercise that authority to limit new oil and gas leasing and avoid the worst impacts of the climate crisis."
"This welcome decision affirms that the Biden administration has wide latitude to rein in federal fossil fuels," said Taylor McKinnon with the Center for Biological Diversity. "Allowing any new fossil fuel projects, including oil and gas leasing, is incompatible with avoiding catastrophic climate change. The administration still has much work to do to bring federal fossil fuel production to a swift and orderly end."
"The law is clear, the oil and gas industry doesn't have a right to frack public lands," said Jeremy Nichols, WildEarth Guardians' Climate and Energy program director. "And given our climate crisis, it's more critical than ever to ensure the industry is not fracking public lands."
"This decision shows that the Department of Interior is not beholden to the fossil fuel industry, as many states and industry groups have alleged," said Adam Carlesco, staff attorney with Food & Water Watch. "Given this understanding of its legal authority, Interior must move towards a future where public lands are protected for a variety of uses - not simply used as sacrifice zones for a polluting industry that is exacerbating our climate crisis."
"This decision marks a step forward in ensuring our public lands are part of the climate solution, not the problem," said Dan Ritzman, director of the Sierra Club's Lands Water Wildlife Campaign. "At a time when we need to be rapidly transitioning away from dirty oil and gas to meet our climate commitments and avoid the worst of the climate crisis, the last thing we need is to sell off even more of our treasured public lands to the fossil fuel industry."
"The court's sensible decision is not only welcome, but necessary in the face of the climate crisis and ongoing environmental racism," said Hallie Templeton, legal director at Friends of the Earth. "The administration's hands were never tied, in part because bedrock environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act authorize the government to analyze and halt actions that pose serious harm, like more oil and gas development."
"This is a sensible decision which allows the federal government to take the steps needed to tackle the climate crisis," said Matt Kirby, senior energy director at the National Parks Conservation Association. "Climate change is an urgent threat to our planet and way of life and we need an administration able to take these bold steps in order to protect our national parks. We hope the administration will continue to strengthen its position and eventually end all new leasing on public lands."
Earthjustice and the Western Environmental Law Center represent a coalition of conservation and citizen groups in the Wyoming litigation. Earthjustice represents Conservation Colorado, Friends of the Earth, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, The Wilderness Society, Valley Organic Growers Association, Western Colorado Alliance, Western Watersheds Project, and Wilderness Workshop. The Western Environmental Law Center represents Center for Biological Diversity, Citizens for a Healthy Community, Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, Earthworks, Food & Water Watch, Indian People's Action, Montana Environmental Information Center, Powder River Basin Resource Council, Western Organization of Resource Councils, and WildEarth Guardians.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
'No More Conspiracy Theories. Kennedy Must Resign,' Says Sanders Amid CDC Fallout
Make America Healthy Again is "a great slogan," the senator wrote. "The problem is that since coming into office President Trump and Mr. Kennedy have done exactly the opposite."
Aug 30, 2025
"Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of health and human services, is endangering the health of the American people now and into the future. He must resign."
That's how US Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee Ranking Member Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) began a New York Times op-ed on Saturday, amid mounting calls for Kennedy to leave the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), by choice or force, following the ouster of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Susan Monarez.
As Sanders detailed in the Times—and a Thursday letter to Senate HELP Committee Chair Bill Cassidy (R-La.) demanding a congressional probe—Monarez was fired after reportedly refusing to "act as a rubber stamp for his dangerous policies." Her exit led to resignations and a staff walkout at the CDC, which is now being led by Jim O'Neill, a Kennedy aide and biotech investor.
Sanders and other lawmakers—including former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a polio survivor and the only Republican to vote against Kennedy's confirmation in February—have long warned about the consequences of letting RFK Jr. hold a key health policy position in President Donald Trump's second administration.
"Mr. Kennedy and the rest of the Trump administration tell us, over and over, that they want to Make America Healthy Again," Sanders noted Saturday. "That's a great slogan. I agree with it. The problem is that since coming into office President Trump and Mr. Kennedy have done exactly the opposite."
"Despite the overwhelming opposition of the medical community, Secretary Kennedy has continued his long-standing crusade against vaccines and his advocacy of conspiracy theories that have been rejected repeatedly by scientific experts," the senator wrote. "It is absurd to have to say this in 2025, but vaccines are safe and effective. That, of course, is not just my view. Far more important, it is the overwhelming consensus of the medical and scientific communities."
Sanders pointed to guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, and World Health Organization, and called out Kennedy's comments on autism, Covid-19 and polio vaccines, and immunizations in general.
"The reality is that Secretary Kennedy has profited from and built a career on sowing mistrust in vaccines. Now, as head of HHS, he is using his authority to launch a full-blown war on science, on public health, and on truth itself," he wrote, warning that in the "short term, it will be harder for Americans to get lifesaving vaccines," including for Covid.
However, "Covid is just the beginning. Mr. Kennedy's next target may be the childhood immunization schedule, the list of recommended vaccines that children receive to protect them from diseases like measles, chickenpox. and polio," the senator continued. He also sounded the alarm over the secretary "defunding the research that could help us prepare for the next pandemic."
Sanders, a leading advocate of Medicare for All, also took aim at the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that Trump signed last month.
"America's healthcare system is already dysfunctional and wildly expensive, and yet the Trump administration will be throwing an estimated 15 million people off their health insurance through a cut of over $1 trillion to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act," he noted. "This cut is also expected to result in the closing of or the decline in services at hundreds of nursing homes, hospitals, and community health centers. As a result of cuts to the Affordable Care Act, health insurance costs will soar for millions of Americans. That is not Making America Healthy Again."
"Secretary Kennedy is putting Americans' lives in danger, and he must resign," Sanders concluded. "In his place, President Trump must listen to doctors and scientists and nominate a health secretary and a CDC director who will protect the health and well-being of the American people, not carry out dangerous policies based on conspiracy theories."
Bernie Sanders is right—RFK Jr. must resign. His leadership is an assault on science, public health, and truth. We’re not just talking politics; we’re talking lives. #ResignKennedy #ScienceFirst”www.nytimes.com/2025/08/30/o...
[image or embed]
— Elizabeth (@elizathewell.bsky.social) August 30, 2025 at 10:30 AM
Doctors, journalists, and others praised the senator's op-ed, with Trauma surgeon Mark Hoofnagle saying that "Bernie nails it."
Pennsylvania State University professor and A Desire Called America author Christian Haines wrote on the social media platform Bluesky that the piece was "clear and incisive, though I wish it didn't need to be said."
Also sharing the post on Bluesky, former Times labor reporter Steven Greenhouse said: "It's delusional for anyone to think that RFK Jr. and Donald Trump are making America healthy again. With Kennedy's war against science, truth, and vaccines and Trump's war against Medicaid, their movement should be called MAKING AMERICA UNHEALTHY AGAIN."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Bid to Block $4.9 Billion With 'Pocket Rescission' Blasted as 'Authoritarianism 101'
"Congress—and only Congress—passes budgets. Because the president's job is to take care the laws are faithfully executed, he must spend the money as directed," said Rep. Jamie Raskin, a constitutional scholar.
Aug 30, 2025
Democracy defenders and members of Congress are condemning US President Donald Trump's effort to use a "pocket rescission" process to block $4.9 billion in foreign aid as authoritarian and illegal.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on Friday shared on social media Trump's letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) about the move. According to a White House fact sheet linked in a subsequent post, much of the money was headed for the US Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which Trump has gutted.
As The Associated Press explained:
The 1974 Impoundment Control Act gives the president the authority to propose canceling funds approved by Congress. Congress can within 45 days vote on pulling back the funds or sustaining them, but by proposing the rescission so close to September 30 the White House argues that the money won’t be spent and the funding lapses.
What was essentially the last pocket rescission occurred in 1977 by Democratic then-President Jimmy Carter, and the Trump administration argues it's a legally permissible tool despite some murkiness as Carter had initially proposed the clawback well ahead of the 45-day deadline.
Shortly after the OMB social media posts, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that OMB Director Russ Vought was helping shutter USAID, writing on the platform X: "Since January, we've saved the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. And with a small set of core programs moved over to the State Department, USAID is officially in closeout mode. Russ is now at the helm to oversee the closeout of an agency that long ago went off the rails. Congrats, Russ."
Meanwhile, Rubio's former congressional colleagues and others are sounding the alarm over the administration's effort.
"America is staring down next month's government funding deadline on September 30," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). "It's clear neither Trump nor congressional Republicans have any plan to avoid a painful and entirely unnecessary shutdown. With Trump's illegal 'pocket rescission': They seem eager to inflict further pain on the American people, raising their healthcare costs, compromising essential services, and further damaging our national security."
Congressman Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) also put pressure on GOP lawmakers, saying that "this is wrong—and illegal. Not only is Trump gutting $5 billion in foreign aid that saves lives and advances America's interests, but he's doing so using an unlawful 'pocket recission' method that undermines Congress' power of the purse. I urge my Republican colleagues to say hell no."
While most Republicans on Capitol Hill have backed Trump's endeavors to claw back funding previously appropriated by Congress, GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) voted against his $9 billion rescission package earlier this year.
Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, also spoke out against Trump's new move, noting in a Friday statement that under the US Constitution, Congress has "the power of the purse," and the Government Accountability Office "has concluded that this type of rescission is unlawful and not permitted by the Impoundment Control Act."
Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a constitutional scholar, similarly stressed that "Congress—and only Congress—passes budgets. Because the president's job is to take care the laws are faithfully executed, he must spend the money as directed. Trump's 'pocket recissions' are lawless and absurd. If a president opposes legislative spending decisions, he can veto them, subject to override, but once passed, he must execute on them."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, declared in a Friday statement that with the pocket rescission move, the Trump administration "demonstrated yet again its contempt for Congress' power of the purse and the Constitution's separation of powers."
"With this Constitution-mocking action, the administration is bringing us closer to a shutdown on September 30, and it doesn't seem to care," Gilbert said. "We call on Congress to push back, pass and abide by appropriations packages, and fight the administration’s illegal impoundments that harm regular Americans."
"This is not just a constitutional crisis, it's a matter of global justice," she added. "The congressionally appropriated funds that the Trump administration illegally aims to cancel support economic development programs to empower the world's most vulnerable and impoverished, and address some of the ravage of catastrophic climate change in developing nations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Tariffs Bound for Supreme Court After Another Legal Loss
If the president's policies are struck down, the administration may have to repay billions of dollars in duties, which customs and trade experts warn "would be a logistical nightmare."
Aug 29, 2025
As working-class Americans endure the pain from US President Donald Trump's tariff war, the Republican signaled that he plans to keep fighting for the levies after a loss at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Trump is the first president to impose tariffs by citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. In a 7-4 ruling, the appellate court's majority found that most of his tariffs are illegal.
The court said that "tariffs are a core congressional power" and "we discern no clear congressional authorization by IEEPA for tariffs of the magnitude of the reciprocal tariffs and trafficking tariffs."
The decision affirms a May ruling from the US Court of International Trade, which also found that Trump exceeded his authority.
Friday's ruling is paused until October 14, to give the White House time to appeal to the nation's highest court. Trump suggested he would do so in a post on his Truth Social platform, writing:
ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT! Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end. If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong. The U.S.A. will no longer tolerate enormous Trade Deficits and unfair Tariffs and Non Tariff Trade Barriers imposed by other Countries, friend or foe, that undermine our Manufacturers, Farmers, and everyone else. If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America. At the start of this Labor Day weekend, we should all remember that TARIFFS are the best tool to help our Workers, and support Companies that produce great MADE IN AMERICA products. For many years, Tariffs were allowed to be used against us by our uncaring and unwise Politicians. Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation, and Make America Rich, Strong, and Powerful Again! Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Politico noted that the Friday decision opens the door "for the administration to potentially have to repay billions worth of duties," and pointed to recent warnings from customs and trade experts "that repayments would be a logistical nightmare, and would likely trigger a wave of legal challenges from other businesses and industry groups seeking reimbursement."
Trump's latest legal loss on the tariff front follows various analyses and polling that show the harm his policies are causing. One Accountable.US report from this month highlights comments from grocery executives about passing costs on to consumers, and a recent survey found that 90% of Americans consider the price of groceries a source of stress.
Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee also released a related report earlier this month. As JEC Ranking Member Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) said at the time, "While President Trump promised that he would expand our manufacturing sector, this report shows that, instead, the chaos and uncertainty created by his tariffs has placed a burden on American manufacturers that could weigh our country down for years to come."
Another mid-August analysis from the Century Foundation and Groundwork Collaborative details the surging cost of school supplies as American families prepared for the 2025-26 academic year. TCF senior fellow Rachel West said that "from his reckless tariffs to his budget law slashing food assistance and federal student loans, Trump's back-to-school message to America's families is crystal clear: Don't expect help, just expect less."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


