Bravos v. United States Bureau of Land Management
816 F. Supp. 2d 1118
D.N.M.2011Background
- This action challenges BLM's approval of two quarterly oil and gas lease sales on April 16, 2008 and July 16, 2008 on New Mexico federal lands.
- Six citizen environmental groups sue on behalf of their members in Climate Change Action; consolidated with Ozone Action case for efficiency.
- Pls allege BLM failed to meaningfully address climate change/GHGs in NEPA/FLPMA/MLA/APA analyses; protests denied.
- Plaintiffs exhausted administrative remedies before filing suit in the District of New Mexico (6:09-cv-00037-RB-LFG).
- Court addresses only standing arguments; ultimately concludes plaintiffs lack standing and dismisses the climate change claims.
- Court outlines three immutable standing elements and relaxed standing rules applicable to procedural rights and parens patriae concepts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do plaintiffs have Article III standing to sue over agency climate analysis? | Amigos Bravos asserts members have injury-in-fact and traceable harms. | Defendants contend no injury-in-fact or causation; vague, non-specific harms. | No standing; injury-in-fact not shown. |
| Is there a sufficient geographical/nexus connection between members and leased lands? | Declarants recreate on NM lands and will be affected by climate impacts. | No specific nexus to the 92 parcels; generalized concerns. | Insufficient geographical nexus to confer standing. |
| Can plaintiffs rely on relaxed causation due to climate change and procedural rights? | Massachusetts v. EPA supports a causal connection for GHG-related injuries. | Global emissions diffuse; cannot trace to BLM leases; causation too weak. | Causation not established; not fairly traceable to BLM actions. |
| Does NEPA procedural injury allow redressability to be relaxed for standing? | Redressability relaxed when asserting procedural rights under NEPA. | Injury in fact remains a hard floor; redressability may be relaxed but injury must exist. | Redressability relaxed but injury-in-fact required; not satisfied. |
| Do non-climate-change injuries alleged by declarants confer standing? | Non-climate harms show concrete impacts. | These injuries do not tie to the challenged agency action or lands. | Non-climate injuries do not confer standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2007) (recognizes standing for procedural/climate-related injuries; meaningful contribution suffices for causation)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Department of the Interior, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability are required; procedural rights do not erase general standing requirements)
- Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (U.S. 2009) (relaxed redressability for procedural injuries but injury-in-fact remains a hard floor)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (establishes three immutable standing elements)
- Bear Lodge Multiple Use Ass'n v. Babbitt, 175 F.3d 814 (10th Cir. 1999) (requires evidence showing standing through specific facts)