Wild Virginia v. Council on Environmental Quality, 56 F.4th 281

Plaintiffs (17 environmental organizations) sued the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in July 2020 seeking vacatur of CEQ’s July 2020 NEPA regulations (the "2020 Rule").
The 2020 Rule made procedural changes (e.g., eliminated cumulative-effects/distinctions between direct/indirect effects, tightened comment requirements, set page/time limits, excluded some loan-guarantee-triggered actions from NEPA, and stated CEQ regulations could operate as a ceiling).
Plaintiffs moved for preliminary relief and submitted ~53 declarations alleging procedural, informational, and substantive harms; CEQ and industry intervenors moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
After the Biden Administration initiated review, CEQ stopped defending the 2020 Rule and promulgated a 2022 Rule that restored the direct/indirect/cumulative language, removed the ceiling language, and revised definitions (mooting some challenges).
The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (standing and ripeness); the Fourth Circuit affirmed primarily on ripeness grounds, holding many asserted injuries speculative because harms depend on third-party agencies implementing NEPA procedures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ripeness of facial challenge to 2020 Rule	Facial review proper now; procedural rule causes imminent injuries	Unripe: harms speculative and contingent on other agencies’ future actions	Unripe — dismissal affirmed
Standing for procedural/commenting injuries	Procedural deprivation (comment rules) injures plaintiffs now	Procedural injury insufficient absent concrete, imminent harm to plaintiffs’ concrete interests	No standing for comment claims on present record
Mootness due to 2022 Rule	Many issues remain live; plaintiffs still harmed while CEQ revises rules	2022 Rule moots several claimed injuries (direct/indirect/cumulative, some alternatives language)	Some claims moot (those reversed in 2022 Rule)
Challenges re: CAFO loan guarantees and timber harvest exclusions	2020 Rule excludes certain loan-guarantee-triggered CAFOs and timber actions from NEPA, causing imminent harms	Speculative: agencies stated they would maintain status quo; plaintiffs gave no evidence linking exemptions to imminent harm; some timber arguments waived	CAFO and timber claims unripe or waived; no jurisdiction on present record

Ohio Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726 (ripeness: programmatic NEPA challenges often unripe; EIS challenges ripe when issued)
Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (procedural-only injury insufficient for standing absent concrete affected interest)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (speculative future harms do not support Article III standing)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (ripeness/standing principles for pre-enforcement challenges)
Dep't of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (EIS informational role and purpose)
Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871 (regulatory challenges often not ripe until concrete application)
Doe v. Va. Dep't of State Police, 713 F.3d 745 (4th Cir.) (ripeness: future harms contingent on third-party actions are unripe)