Summary
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia considers environmental organizations’ motion for a preliminary injunction challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s January 2026 approval of a right-of-way for the Northern Corridor Highway through Utah’s Red Cliffs National Conservation Area. Plaintiffs assert claims under the Omnibus Public Land Management Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Endangered Species Act. The court concludes that plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on at least their OPLMA and APA claims and granted preliminary injunctive relief, while setting an expedited schedule for resolution on the merits.
Court
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Decision date
March 1, 2026
Docket number
Civil Action No. 26-317 (RDM)
Disposition
other
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that the Bureau's 2026 approval of the Northern Corridor right-of-way violated the Omnibus Public Land Management Act.
- Whether plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that the Bureau's 2026 decision was arbitrary and capricious because it inadequately explained its departure from the Bureau's contrary 2024 decision.
- Whether plaintiffs demonstrated likely irreparable harm, favorable equities, and a public interest supporting a preliminary injunction.
- Whether plaintiffs raised substantial questions regarding the Fish and Wildlife Service's 2025 biological opinion under the Endangered Species Act, although the Court did not decide that claim on the merits at this stage.
Holdings
- At the preliminary-injunction stage, the OPLMA is best construed to permit the Secretary to authorize a northern transportation route through the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area only in a manner consistent with the Secretary's broader duty to conserve, protect, and enhance the area's resources and threatened and endangered species. The Secretary must evaluate alternatives and select the route that minimizes impacts on the protected resources; the statute does not permit selection of a more damaging route merely because a less damaging alternative is more costly, uncertain, or administratively difficult.
- Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their APA claim because the Bureau failed adequately to explain its reversal of the 2024 decision. The 2026 Record of Decision did not meaningfully explain what new information changed the agency's assessment of the alternative route, what 'viability' or 'technical and economic feasibility' meant, or how those considerations related to the OPLMA's conservation mandate.
- Plaintiffs established likely irreparable injury from imminent fencing and other ground-disturbing activities in Mojave desert tortoise critical habitat. The threatened habitat degradation, fragmentation, vegetation removal, and potential tortoise injury or death outweighed the asserted financial and transportation-related harms, and the public interest favored protecting the conservation area and threatened species.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…