366 F. Supp. 3d 1284
D. Wyo.2018Background
- In Nov. 2016 BLM issued the "Waste Prevention Rule" to reduce waste from venting, flaring, and leaks on onshore federal and Indian leases; certain key provisions were phased to become effective Jan. 17, 2018.
- Multiple petitioners challenged the Rule; the Court initially denied a preliminary injunction because many provisions were phased in later, and set an expedited merits schedule.
- After a Congressional review effort and a presidential directive, BLM postponed phase-in compliance dates and announced plans to suspend/revise the Rule; BLM later adopted a one‑year Suspension Rule and proposed a Revision Rule.
- Parallel litigation in the Northern District of California resulted in that court vacating BLM's Postponement Notice and later preliminarily enjoining the Suspension Rule, creating conflicting enforcement uncertainty and reopening the Jan. 2018 effective dates.
- Given BLM's active reconsideration and pending notice-and-comment Revision Rule, this Court concluded adjudicating the merits now would be inefficient, raised prudential ripeness and mootness concerns, and found implementation would cause irreparable compliance costs.
- The Court exercised equitable authority under 5 U.S.C. § 705 to stay implementation of the Rule's phase-in provisions and to stay the consolidated cases pending finalization or withdrawal of the Revision Rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should lift stay and proceed to merits / require immediate compliance with phase-in provisions | Petitioners (North Dakota, Texas, industry): proceed now; states harmed by continued (even limited) Rule operation and sovereign/ regulatory intrusions | Federal Respondents/BLM: stay litigation and implementation while agency reconsiders to avoid wasting resources and litigating a rule under active reconsideration | Stay denied for motions to lift; Court stayed phase-in provisions and consolidated cases pending final Revision Rule |
| Whether prudential ripeness / prudential mootness preclude judicial review now | Petitioners: issues are fit and harm is ongoing so review is proper | Federal Respondents: agency reconsideration renders issues unripe or prudentially moot; court should avoid entanglement | Court found prudential ripeness and mootness concerns weigh against immediate review and permitted administrative process to run its course |
| Whether § 705 equitable relief (stay/suspension) requires preliminary injunction factors | Petitioners: seek vacatur or injunction under §705; some argued standard should mirror PI test | Intervenors/others: §705 gives equitable discretion without requiring the four-factor PI test | Court exercised §705 equitable discretion to stay implementation without strictly applying the four‑factor PI test |
| Whether agency has authority to reconsider/suspend/revise its Rule | Petitioners: challenge BLM postponement/suspension as improper | Federal Respondents: agencies have inherent authority to reconsider rules and to postpone implementation pending reconsideration | Court recognized BLM's inherent authority to reconsider and held that reconsideration supported a stay to avoid futile litigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Trujillo v. Gen. Elec. Co., 621 F.2d 1084 (10th Cir. 1980) (agencies have inherent authority to reconsider their decisions)
- ConocoPhillips Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 612 F.3d 822 (5th Cir. 2010) (agency may reconsider decisions unless arbitrary and capricious)
- Wyoming v. Zinke, 871 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2017) (ripeness doctrine prevents premature adjudication during agency reconsideration)
- Farrell-Cooper Min. Co. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 728 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2013) (ripeness analysis considers administrative interference and benefit of further factual development)
- Fletcher v. U.S., 116 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 1997) (prudential mootness rooted in court's equitable power to withhold relief)
- S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Smith, 110 F.3d 724 (10th Cir. 1997) (prudential mootness concerns the court's discretion to decline relief)
- Bldg. & Constr. Dep't v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 7 F.3d 1487 (10th Cir. 1993) (prudential mootness often applies where government is changing policies)
- WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 784 F.3d 677 (10th Cir. 2015) (agency action bears a presumption of validity; challengers bear the burden)