On December 18, 2025, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s) adoption and implementation of an Interim Final Rule issued in July of 2025 that rescinds long-standing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations and procedures.

Summary of the Complaint

The complaint characterizes the case as a direct challenge to DOI’s elimination of “the public’s vital role in federal agency environmental reviews for logging, drilling, mining, road construction, and other projects proposed on Interior-managed public lands.”  According to the plaintiffs, DOI’s action dismantles nearly fifty years of regulatory practice under which agencies were required to provide notice, solicit public comment, and engage affected communities during the preparation of environmental assessments (EAs) and environmental impact statements (EISs).

The plaintiffs allege that DOI adopted the new procedures pursuant to Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, and did so through a rushed rulemaking process that “sidestepped basic APA procedural requirements.”  The result, they contend, is a system in which “public involvement in nearly all aspects of the NEPA process [is] non-existent or, at best, entirely discretionary,” leaving communities “in the dark as to the full scope of a proposed project and its impacts—or even the very existence of a project proposal—until after the agency approves the project.”

The complaint emphasizes that DOI’s sub-agencies have already applied the Interim Final Rule to authorize major extractive and energy projects, including coal lease sales, mine expansions, oil and gas drilling approvals, and offshore leasing decisions, without circulating draft EISs or providing opportunities for public participation. The plaintiffs seek declaratory relief invalidating the rule, vacatur under the APA, and an order requiring DOI to revert to its prior NEPA procedures pending lawful rulemaking.

Claims Asserted

Administrative Procedure Act Violations

The plaintiffs allege that DOI’s Interim Final Rule violates the APA because it constitutes a substantive rule adopted without notice-and-comment rulemaking and without a valid finding of “good cause.” The complaint asserts that DOI “finalized and made [the rule] effective without advanced public notice of, or an opportunity to comment on, the rule, and … provided no explanation for [its] major change in its longstanding public participation procedures.”

According to the plaintiffs, the challenged rule cannot be justified as a mere procedural or interpretive change because it fundamentally alters how NEPA is implemented across DOI agencies. The complaint alleges that DOI’s failure to follow APA rulemaking requirements “deprived Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ members of their procedural right to protect their concrete interests in participating in decision making affecting the human environments they use and enjoy.”

National Environmental Policy Act Violations

The plaintiffs further allege that DOI’s actions violate NEPA by eliminating mandatory public participation mechanisms that are central to NEPA’s purpose and statutory design. The complaint cites Supreme Court precedent emphasizing that NEPA’s “twin aims” are to ensure agencies take a “hard look” at environmental impacts and to “inform the public that it has considered environmental concerns in its decision-making process.”

By removing requirements for public involvement in EAs and draft EISs, the plaintiffs contend that DOI has undermined NEPA’s core “look before you leap” mandate. The complaint alleges that DOI’s revised procedures allow agencies to approve projects with “inadequate and belated disclosure” that “precludes meaningful public input and undermines NEPA’s goal to promote informed agency decision making.”

Arbitrary and Capricious Agency Action

Finally, the plaintiffs allege that DOI’s reversal of decades of established NEPA practice is arbitrary and capricious. The complaint asserts that DOI failed to grapple with its own prior findings that public involvement is an integral part of the NEPA process and failed to explain why eliminating public participation would remain consistent with NEPA, CEQ guidance, and congressional enactments that presuppose notice and comment on draft EISs. The plaintiffs argue that DOI’s emphasis on efficiency and certainty “above all other objectives” cannot lawfully justify abandoning NEPA’s public disclosure and participation framework.

Implications for Extractive and Energy Industries

If successful, this litigation could have short- and long-term implications for companies operating on or adjacent to federal lands and waters:

• Permitting Uncertainty: Projects that recently relied on streamlined or non-public NEPA reviews may face renewed procedural requirements, potential re-review, or litigation risk.
• Extended Timelines: Restoration of draft EIS circulation, public comment periods, and EA participation could lengthen permitting schedules for mining, logging, oil and gas, and energy infrastructure projects.
• Increased Litigation Exposure: The lawsuit underscores continued judicial scrutiny of fast-tracked federal permitting decisions, particularly where agencies limit public involvement.
• Policy Volatility: The case highlights the fragility of permitting reforms implemented through interim or expedited rulemaking, especially where agencies depart from long-standing NEPA practice.

Takeaways

Project proponents with federal approvals in progress or obtained under the revised DOI procedures should closely monitor this case and evaluate contingency planning for potential procedural changes. Early engagement with counsel on permitting posture, administrative record development, and litigation risk mitigation could aid planning efforts.

This article summarizes aspects of the law and opinions that are solely those of the authors. This article does not constitute legal advice. For legal advice regarding your situation, you should contact an attorney.