Cases

ORDER HOWARD D. McKIBBEN, District Judge. Before the court are plaintiff Western Watersheds Project (“plaintiff”)and defendant U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (“BLM”) cross-motions for summary judgment (## 45, 54). Plaintiff and defendant have each submitted responses and replies. A hearing was held on the motions on July 8, 2015, and the case has been submitted. Factual Background On

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND IN-TERVENOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DOLLY M. GEE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court held a hearing on January 27, 2012. Having duly considered the respective positions of the parties, as presented in their briefs and at oral argum

Appellate Case: 25-8026 Document: 60-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 26, 2026

632 F.3d 472 (2010) WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT; Ralph Maughan; Idaho Wildlife Federation; Idaho Conservation League; Natural Resources Defense Council; National Wildlife Federation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Joe KRAAYENBRINK; James L. Caswell; Bureau of Land Management; Dave Pacioretty; Dirk Kempthorne; David Rosenkrance, Defendants, Public Lands Council, Defendant-intervenor, and American Farm Bureau Federation, Defendant-intervenor-Appel

OPINION GOULD, Circuit Judge: More than two-hundred years ago, the Upper Missouri River Breaks enchanted Lewis and Clark as they traveled westward through what is now north-central Montana. Proclamation No. 7398, 3 C.F.R. § 7398 (2002). The explorers marveled at the area’s “most romantic appearance,” with white sandstone bluffs that seemed “to rival t

736 F.Supp.2d 1276 (2010) WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT, Plaintiff v. David ROSENKRANCE, Field Manager, Challis Field Office; and Bureau of Land Management, Defendants. Case No. CV 09-365-E-BLW. United States District Court, D. Idaho. July 29, 2010. *1277 Lauren M. Rule, Kristin F. Ruether, Advocates for the West, Boise, ID, for Pla

ORDER The Opinion, filed on September 1, 2010 and reported at 620 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2010), is amended as follows: 1. At slip op. 13266, 620 F.3d at 1209, the citation is replaced with <see also Tribal Village of Akutan v. Hodel, 869 F.2

OPINION PAEZ, Circuit Judge: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the federal agency charged with overseeing livestock grazing on over 160 million acres of public land in the western United States. Pursuant to the BLM’s authority under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, 43 U.S.C. § 315 et seq., the BLM has adopted regulations that implement its grazing management responsibilities. See

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge Plaintiffs Western Watersheds Project, Sierra Club, Wyoming Wildlife Advocates, and Gallatin Wildlife Association (collectively, "Plaintiffs") object to the state of Wyoming's use of a feeding site on federal land to conduct a supplemental feeding program for wild elk in the northwestern part of Wyoming. Environmental organizations have previously had limited success in court chall

ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge. This matter is before the court on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. (ECF 77, 83, 84, 87.) Plaintiffs assert BLM’s renewal of grazing permits in Eastern California violates the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The court held hearing on the motions on March 14, 2012. Natalie Havlina appe

774 F.Supp.2d 1089 (2011) WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT and Center for Biological Diversity, Plaintiffs, v. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, Defendant, and Spring Valley Wind LLC, Defendant-Intervenor. No. 3:11-cv-00053-HDM-VPC. United States District Court, D. Nevada. March 28, 2011. *1090 David H. Becker, Law Office of David H. Becker,

ORDER 'Paul G. Rosenblatt, United States District Judge This case involves challenges under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) to the Bureau of Land Management’s (“BLM”) decision regarding the management of livestock grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument (the “SDNM”). Specifically, Plaintiffs Western Watershed Project and Sierra Club (collectively, “WWP”) contend that the process by whi

315 F.Supp.2d 1068 (2004) WESTERN LAND EXCHANGE PROJECT, Committee for Idaho's High Desert, and Center for Biological Diversity, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, Defendant. No. CVN02-0343-DWH(RAM). United States District Court, D. Nevada. March 19, 2004. *1069 *1070

87 F.Supp.2d 1074 (1999) SISKIYOU REGIONAL EDUCATION PROJECT, Plaintiff, v. Nancy ROSE, District Ranger, Galice Ranger District; Michael Lunn, Supervisor, Siskiyou National Forest; United States Forest Service; Daniel Glickman, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Defendants. No. Civ. 98-3069-CO. United States District Court, D. Oregon. December 13, 1999.

OPINION MCKEE, Circuit Judge. Appellants (collectively referred to as “ADP”), appeal the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant, the United States Forest Service, on Counts I and III of their complaint. ADP filed suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and the National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”), to challenge the Forest Servic

Stephens, J. ¶98 (dissenting) — The majority’s decision hinges on an interpretation of RCW 19.27.097 that is unsupported by the plain language of the statute, precedent, or common sense. It assumes this provision of the building code requires Whatcom County to determine water right priorities before it may grant a building permit that relies on a permit-exempt well. It also assumes this provision prohibits the county from relying

ORDER (Pife’ Motion for Summary Judgment— ECF No. 67; Plfs’ Motion to Supplement Record—ECF No. 68; Defs’ Motion for Summary Judgment— ECF No. 75; Intervenors’ Motion for Summary Judgment—ECF No. 77; Defs’ Motion to Strike—ECF No. 102) MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. SUMMARY Plaintiffs bring this action against the Department of the Interior (“DOI”), Bure

¶1 Cox, J. Whatcom County appeals the Growth Management Hearings Board’s Final Decision and Order *40(FDO) dated June 7, 2013. The Board determined that the rural element of the County’s comprehensive plan and zoning code, as amended by Ordinance No. 2012-032, fails to comply with the Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW. Eric Hirst, Laura Leigh B

423 F.3d 215 THE ALLEGHENY DEFENSE PROJECT, INC.; Heartwood, Inc.; the Pennsylvania Environmental Network; the National Forest Protection Alliance; Communities for Sustainable Forestry; Jim Kleissler; Newkirk Johnson; Rachel Martin; Susan Curry; Ryan Talbott; Bill Belitskus; Arthur Clark; Alexander Denmarsh; John A. Keslick, Jr.; Sierra Clubv.The UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; Robert T. Jacobs, in his official capacity as the Regional Forest

163 F.Supp.2d 1222 (2001) LEAGUE OF WILDERNESS DEFENDERS/BLUE MOUNTAINS BIODIVERSITY PROJECT, an Oregon nonprofit corporation; Kettle Range Conservation Group, a Washington nonprofit corporation; The Lands Council, a Washington nonprofit corporation; Hells Canyon Preservation Council, an Oregon nonprofit corporation; *1223 Oregon Natural Resources Council, an Oregon nonprofit corporation; American Lands, an Oregon non