Western Energy Alliance v. Zinke
877 F.3d 1157
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Western Energy Alliance (WEA) sued the Secretary of the Interior and BLM under the APA, FOIA, and Declaratory Judgment Act, alleging BLM violated the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) by holding fewer than four competitive oil-and-gas lease sales per BLM State Office per year.
- Several conservation organizations sought to intervene to defend environmental protections and the BLM’s Leasing Reform Policy (I.M. 2010-117) they helped obtain.
- The district court denied intervention: it found the motion timely and that the groups had protectable environmental interests, but concluded those interests would not be impaired and that the BLM adequately represented them.
- The conservation groups appealed the denial of intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a).
- The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding the groups satisfied Rule 24(a) — timeliness, protectable interests (environmental protection and preservation of the Leasing Reform Policy), possible impairment, and inadequate representation by the BLM given potential policy shifts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (WEA) | Defendant's Argument (BLM/WEA position at hearing) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conservation groups timely moved to intervene | WEA did not contest timeliness | WEA noted intervention should be limited | Timely — movants filed ~2 months after complaint; no prejudice to parties |
| Whether movants have a protectable interest | WEA seeks to compel more frequent lease sales; may seek rescission/revision of Leasing Reform Policy | WEA argued it was not challenging Leasing Reform Policy (representations accepted by district court) | Protectable interests found: environmental protections and interest in preserving Leasing Reform Policy |
| Whether litigation may impair movants' interests | WEA: relief limited to compelling quarterly sales; no risk to Policy | Conservation groups: judgment could force BLM to change procedures/policies (including Leasing Reform Policy), harming interests | Possible impairment satisfied; minimal showing required and impairment is plausible if BLM must revise policy |
| Whether BLM adequately represents movants | BLM/public interest aligns with conservation groups | WEA/district court assumed adequate representation because BLM and groups share objectives | Inadequate: government may shift objectives (administration changes, executive orders), so divergence possible; intervention as of right allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 377 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir.) (describes BLM’s three‑phase leasing process)
- Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (explains BLM’s multiple‑use statutory mandate)
- WildEarth Guardians v. National Park Service, 604 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2010) (environmental concern is a protectable interest for intervention)
- Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties for Stable Economic Growth v. Department of Interior, 100 F.3d 837 (10th Cir. 1996) (liberal approach to intervention; standards for protectable interests and representation)
- Utah Association of Counties v. Clinton, 255 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 2001) (intervention timeliness and impairment analysis)
- WildEarth Guardians v. United States Forest Service, 573 F.3d 992 (10th Cir. 2009) (minimal burden to show inadequate representation and government’s multiple objectives)
- San Juan County, Utah v. United States, 503 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir.) (definition of protectable interest in context of intervention)
- Kane County, Utah v. United States, 597 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir.) (adequate representation where single clear government position exists)