Atchafalaya Basinkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 3:18-cv-00023

Background

Plaintiffs (Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, Louisiana Crawfish Producers Assn.-West, Gulf Restoration Network, Waterkeeper Alliance, Sierra Club Delta Chapter) moved for a second preliminary injunction/TRO to stop Bayou Bridge pipeline construction in the Atchafalaya Basin, alleging permit violations during flood-stage conditions.
The district court previously granted a preliminary injunction halting construction; the Corps and Bayou Bridge appealed and the Fifth Circuit reversed, finding Plaintiffs had not shown likelihood of success on the merits.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit considered and admitted into the record a declaration from Bayou Bridge’s project manager addressing when construction could safely resume; Plaintiffs did not contest that submission on appeal.
Plaintiffs claimed the flooding/permit-violation issue was not decided by the Fifth Circuit and moved again in district court for injunctive relief; the court found the appellate record contrary to that claim.
The court also found Plaintiffs had long known of the alleged violations (notices beginning March–June 2018 and additional monitoring in Oct.–Dec. 2018) yet delayed filing the renewed motion until January 2019, undermining urgency and irreparable-harm claims.
The court noted construction was nearly complete, raising mootness concerns, and denied the Second Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/TRO.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the flooding/permit-violation claims are open for district-court adjudication after the Fifth Circuit appeal	Plaintiffs: Fifth Circuit did not address flooding/permit conditions, so district court should consider them now	Defendants: Appellate record included Bayou Bridge declaration about water conditions; Fifth Circuit considered the issue and ruled Plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success	Court: Rejects Plaintiffs' contention; appellate record addressed water/conditions, so issue not properly re-litigable now
Whether Plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm warranting emergency relief	Plaintiffs: Ongoing construction during flood-stage causes irreparable environmental harm to the Basin	Defendants: Plaintiffs delayed in seeking relief despite knowledge of alleged violations months earlier; construction near completion (possible mootness)	Court: Delay and near-completion undermine urgency and irreparable-harm showing; TRO denied
Whether a preliminary injunction is appropriate given procedural posture and prior Fifth Circuit ruling	Plaintiffs: Renewed injunction appropriate because flooding-specific claims were untouched on appeal	Defendants: Prior reversal and appellate record defeat show lack of likelihood of success and counsel against injunctive relief	Court: Denies renewed injunctive relief; reiterates high burden and finds Plaintiffs did not satisfy requirements
Whether public interest and balance of harms favor injunction	Plaintiffs: Protect Basin and public interest in environmental preservation	Defendants: Harm to defendants and public from enjoining near-complete project; Plaintiffs’ delay reduces equities	Court: Equities and public interest do not support emergency injunction

Key Cases Cited

Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear showing)
Planned Parenthood Ass'n of Hidalgo Cty. Tex., Inc. v. Suehs, 692 F.3d 343 (5th Cir. 2012) (factors for preliminary injunction)
Canal Authority of Florida v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1974) (preliminary injunction standards)
Tough Traveler, Ltd. v. Outbound Prod., 60 F.3d 964 (2d Cir. 1995) (delay in seeking injunction undermines claim of irreparable harm)
Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust, 756 F.2d 273 (2d Cir. 1985) (delay undercuts injunctive relief)
Boire v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc., 515 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1975) (affirming denial of temporary injunctive relief where movant delayed)
Gonannies, Inc. v. GoAuPair.Com, Inc., 464 F. Supp. 2d 603 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (delay is an important factor against preliminary injunction)