Solenex LLC v. Jewell, 156 F. Supp. 3d 83

Solenex LLC holds an oil/gas lease (BLM lease) in Montana dating to a 1982 lease and an approved APD in 1985; the APD has been suspended intermittently and continuously since July 15, 1998.
Multiple federal agencies (BLM, Forest Service, others) have conducted NEPA and NHPA reviews that have delayed final agency action on whether to lift the suspension.
The administrative review and suspension determination have remained unresolved for ~29 years at the time of the opinion.
Solenex sued under the Administrative Procedure Act alleging unlawful delay/unreasonably withheld agency action and moved for summary judgment; defendants cross-moved for summary judgment.
The Court found the 29-year delay unreasonable under the APA but declined to directly order lifting the suspension; instead it imposed a judicially supervised remedy requiring the agencies to submit an expedited schedule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether agencies unreasonably delayed final action under the APA	Delay of ~29 years is unreasonable and requires relief	Delay justified by complex NEPA/NHPA reviews and ongoing work	Court: Delay is unreasonable under 5 U.S.C. §706(1) (finds 29 years excessive)
Appropriate remedy for unreasonable delay	Court should order immediate lifting of the lease suspension	Court should not directly lift suspension; agencies should be allowed to finish reviews	Court: Denies order to lift suspension; directs less intrusive remedy (court-supervised schedule)
Form of judicial oversight to compel agency action	Require agencies to set a firm timetable to resolve suspension	Agencies oppose micromanagement and argue progress is near completion	Court: Orders agencies to submit an accelerated schedule within 21 days for court approval and to adhere to it
Consequences for noncompliance with schedule	Immediate judicial relief (lift suspension) if agencies fail	Agencies seek flexibility and claim ongoing near-completion status	Court: Requires court approval for schedule changes and explanations for material failures; failure could lead to further judicial relief, potentially lifting suspension

Nader v. F.C.C., 520 F.2d 182 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (decades-long agency delay unacceptable; court may order supervised schedule)
Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Brock, 823 F.2d 626 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (court can compel adherence to agency schedule to cure delay)
Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. C.A.B., 750 F.2d 81 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (court ordered status reports and supervised schedule for agency action)
MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. F.C.C., 627 F.2d 322 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (judicially supervised schedule appropriate to conclude prolonged agency proceedings)
In re American Rivers & Idaho Rivers United, 372 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (six-year agency delay found egregious)
Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Auchter, 702 F.2d 1150 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (multi-year delays in agency decisionmaking can be unreasonable)
Muwekma Tribe v. Babbitt, 133 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000) (court directed agency to submit schedule for resolution)
Geneme v. Holder, 935 F. Supp. 2d 184 (D.D.C. 2013) (eight-year delay held unreasonable)
Han Cao v. Upchurch, 496 F. Supp. 2d 569 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (four-year delay in administrative review presumptively unreasonable)