State of Wyoming v. Zinke, 871 F.3d 1133

BLM promulgated a 2015 Fracking Regulation (43 C.F.R. § 3162.3-3 and related revisions) to update well construction/testing, require chemical disclosures, and limit flowback storage on federal and trust lands. It underwent multi-year notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Industry groups and two States challenged the rule in district court under the APA, arguing the BLM exceeded its statutory authority; citizen groups and tribes defended the rule.
The district court preliminarily enjoined the rule and later vacated it on the ground the BLM lacked statutory authority (FLPMA, MLA, and Indian mineral statutes did not authorize fracking regulation) and that the SDWA amendment foreclosed federal regulation of non-diesel fracking.
While appeals were pending, the new Administration initiated a formal process to rescind the 2015 Fracking Regulation and published notice seeking comment on full rescission.
The Tenth Circuit concluded the appeals were prudentially unripe given the BLM’s announced rescission effort, vacated the district court judgment, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the underlying action without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BLM had statutory authority to promulgate the Fracking Regulation	BLM lacked statutory authority under FLPMA, MLA, IMLA, IMDA; SDWA amendment prevents federal regulation of non-diesel fracking	BLM relied on its organic and mineral-management statutes to regulate well operations on federal and trust lands	Not reached on the merits: appeal dismissed as prudentially unripe because BLM is actively rescinding the rule
Whether appeals were ripe for appellate review while BLM was rescinding the rule	Plaintiffs sought immediate review to affirm vacatur and resolve authority question	BLM argued the appeals should be held pending its rescission process; judicial review now would be wasteful	Court held appeals prudentially unripe and unfit for review because the rule’s future was uncertain
Whether withholding review would cause hardship warranting immediate decision	Plaintiffs: continued uncertainty and potential regulatory burden	Defendants: rescission eliminates need for immediate review; no immediate compliance harm while rule is stayed	Court found no immediate, direct hardship from withholding review and thus favored abstention
Appropriate remedy to the district court judgment given unripe appeals	Plaintiffs sought affirmance of district vacatur	BLM and intervenors requested dismissal/abeyance; some intervenors later asked for vacatur	Court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice

Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (principle that courts usually must hear cases within jurisdiction)
Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (ripeness framework: fitness and hardship)
Nat’l Park Hosp. Ass’n v. Dep’t of Interior, 538 U.S. 803 (ripeness and avoidance of premature adjudication)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (agency deference framework referenced by district court)
API v. EPA, 683 F.3d 382 (abeyance of appeal while agency revised rule)
Farrell-Cooper Mining Co. v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 728 F.3d 1229 (ripeness factors and whether further agency action would aid review)
Utah v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 535 F.3d 1184 (dismissing or abating challenges where further agency action could render dispute moot)
United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (vacatur doctrine when appeals become moot)