793 F.Supp.3d 158
D.D.C.2025Background
- Plaintiffs (Sierra Club and other environmental organizations) sued federal agencies (EPA, CEQ, DOT, FEMA) for removing several public web-based environmental data tools.
- Plaintiffs alleged the deletions violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), arguing agencies removed “significant information dissemination products” without proper process.
- The deleted tools (EJScreen, CEQ’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool, DOT’s ETC Explorer, FEMA’s Future Risk Index) provided interactive mapping/data on environmental and health burdens.
- Plaintiffs used these resources to inform the public, conduct research, and guide environmental initiatives.
- Plaintiffs filed for a preliminary injunction to compel immediate restoration of the webpages but waited several months after tool removal to seek this relief.
- The court considered whether Plaintiffs met the high bar for a preliminary injunction, focusing first on irreparable harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Irreparable harm from tool removal | Losses from losing uniquely useful resources and increased resource allocation. | Harm is economic, not irreparable; plaintiffs waited too long to seek relief. | No irreparable harm shown; motion denied. |
| Delay in seeking injunction | Delay reasonable while searching for alternatives and hoping for agency correction. | Delay shows lack of urgency and undercuts irreparable harm claim. | Plaintiffs' delay inexcusable; weighs against relief. |
| Economic/resource diversion as harm | Costs/time spent replacing tools is harm supporting injunction. | Economic/investment of time/resources is not irreparable harm under precedent. | Economic harm alone not enough for injunction. |
| Harm to unnamed third parties (public) | Public’s loss of access is irreparable. | Only harm to named Plaintiffs is relevant for preliminary injunction analysis. | Only Plaintiffs' harm considered, not public's. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (establishes four-factor test and high bar for preliminary injunctions)
- Cobell v. Norton, 391 F.3d 251 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (movant's burden to clearly show entitlement to injunctive relief)
- Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (economic loss is not irreparable harm for injunctions)
- Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass’n v. Federal Power Comm’n, 259 F.2d 921 (D.C. Cir. 1958) (resources spent are not irreparable harm)
- Fund for Animals v. Frizzell, 530 F.2d 982 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (delayed request for injunction undermines finding of irreparable harm)