Cal. v. Bernhardt

Cal. v. Bernhardt

Opinion

 [*582]  Order: (1) Granting Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment; and (2) Denying Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment

Re: Dkt. Nos. 108, 109, 123, 125, 126, 127

The Court attaches hereto the Order regarding the parties' [**6]  motions for summary judgment.

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 108, 109, 123, 125, 126, and 127.

It Is So Ordered.

Dated: July 15, 2020

/s/ Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

United States District Judge

It is a cornerstone of our modern Constitutional republic that agencies created through the legislative process and administered through the executive branch can, through the rulemaking process, administer statutes and promulgate regulations within their statutory mandate. The Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") imposes limits on these agencies' actions, prohibiting actions found to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." Agencies are required to provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. These constraints are subject to oversight by the judicial branch to safeguard the integrity of the same. It is not the judiciary's place to question substantive policy decisions. Yet, the judiciary must ensure that the agency acts rationally, and permits the public to otherwise engage meaningfully. Where an agency fails to adhere to these edicts, a court must fulfill its duties in striking [**7]  the defectively promulgated rule.

This litigation stems from the Bureau of Land Management's ("BLM") rulemaking process with respect to a 2018 rule (the "Rescission") that rescinds an earlier 2016 rule (the "Waste Prevention Rule" or the "2016 Rule"). Six cross motions for summary judgment are pending. Plaintiffs, the states of California and New Mexico filed one, and certain "Citizen Groups"¹ filed another. Defendants and intervenor-defendants filed the remaining four, those of the "Federal Defendants" which includes the Department of the Interior ("DOI") and BLM² ; the state of Wyoming; and two  [*583]  industry groups.³

BLM's efforts to enact, then to modify, suspend, and ultimately repeal the 2016 Rule have been the subject of numerous lawsuits. This suit only focuses on the adequacy of the Rescission, and not the 2016 Rule. In this regard, and in summary, the Court finds that the rulemaking process resulting in the Rescission was wholly inadequate. In its haste, BLM ignored its statutory mandate under the Mineral Leasing Act, repeatedly failed to justify numerous reversals in policy positions previously taken, and failed to consider scientific findings and institutions relied upon by both prior [**8]  Republican and Democratic administrations.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.