Protect Our Parks, Inc. v. Pete Buttigieg, 10 F.4th 758

Background

In 2016 the City of Chicago and the Barack Obama Foundation selected roughly 20 acres of Jackson Park for the Obama Presidential Center, which required closing nearby local roadways.
The National Park Service approved the conversion of parkland under the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program conditioned on replacement/expansion of recreation areas; the Park Service considered the Center’s placement not an alternative it could reject given statutory constraints.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) reviewed and approved a road‑building plan ("Alternative 9B") to mitigate road closures; FHWA’s alternatives all assumed the Center would be built and road closures would occur.
The Park Service and FHWA prepared a joint environmental assessment under NEPA, limited to actions within each agency’s approval authority, and concluded no "significant" environmental impact requiring an EIS.
Protect Our Parks sued under the APA arguing the agencies unlawfully segmented NEPA review and failed to consider alternative locations and the full environmental impacts (trees, birds, historic features); the district court denied a preliminary injunction.
Protect Our Parks moved for an injunction pending appeal; the Seventh Circuit denied that motion, explained its reasoning, and granted expedited briefing on the appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether agencies unlawfully segmented NEPA review by not considering alternative locations for the Center	Agencies should have considered alternative sites; segmentation avoided an EIS	Agencies lacked authority to decide site location and properly limited review to actions within their control	Agencies did not unlawfully segment; NEPA applies only to "major Federal actions" under agency control; site choice was not a federal alternative
Whether agencies failed to consider indirect/environmental impacts (trees, birds, historic resources) adequately	Agencies ignored significance of removing ~800 trees, bird harms, and historic impacts	Agencies performed detailed surveys, mitigation (1:1 tree replacement, timing limits), and a hard look; balanced change against benefits	Court defers to agency expertise; plaintiffs unlikely to show arbitrary and capricious decision-making
Causation: whether agency approvals were the proximate cause of environmental harms	Agency approvals enabled the Center and thus caused harm	Park Service approval was nondiscretionary under statute and FHWA approval addressed only compensatory road work; agencies were not proximate causes	Approvals were not legally sufficient proximate causes of the asserted harms; limited federal control defeats causal connection
Whether plaintiffs made the required showing for an injunction pending appeal	Plaintiffs argued likelihood of success and irreparable harm	Defendants argued plaintiffs failed to make a strong showing on the merits and balance of equities favored defendants	Motion for injunction pending appeal denied: plaintiffs did not make the "strong" showing required under Winter and Seventh Circuit precedent

Key Cases Cited

Protect Our Parks, Inc. v. Chi. Park Dist., 971 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2020) (prior suit addressing location decision and state-law/constitutional claims)
Cavel Int'l, Inc. v. Madigan, 500 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2007) (injunction pending appeal is an extraordinary remedy)
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (four-factor preliminary injunction standard)
Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1976) (deference to agency determinations about project scope)
Dep't of Transp. v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (U.S. 2004) (requirement that agency actions be a proximate cause of asserted environmental harms)
Highway J Citizens Grp. v. Mineta, 349 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2003) (piecemealing/segmentation doctrine under NEPA)
Old Town Neighborhood Ass'n v. Kauffman, 333 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 2003) (limits on federal authority where local actors can act without federal approval)
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1971) (agency must consider relevant factors; APA review standard)
Sauk Prairie Conservation Alliance v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 944 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2019) (lack of agency authority breaks causal chain in NEPA claims)
DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891 (U.S. 2020) (arbitrary-and-capricious review standard and consideration of relevant factors)