Ninth Circuit: Judges Question ANWR Lease Cancellation Mootness

• The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals questioned the mootness of an appeal concerning the cancellation of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil and gas leases.
• The case originated from former Interior Secretary Deb Haaland's cancellation of leases, which was subsequently reversed by President Trump after retaking office.
• The current Interior Department has issued a 2025 decision reaffirming the validity of the leases and rescinding the earlier cancellation.
• Attorneys debated whether upholding the Secretary's cancellation authority remained meaningful given the subsequent executive actions and ongoing separate litigation.
• New ANWR land auctions have occurred, with the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority securing most bids.

Central to the court's inquiry was whether a ruling on the appeal could still achieve its intended purpose, given subsequent actions by the federal government.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently grappled with the complex issue of Ninth Circuit ANWR lease cancellation mootness, questioning the practical impact of an appeal concerning oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). A judicial panel, including U.S. Circuit Judges Michelle Friedland and Ana de Alba, alongside U.S. Senior District Judge Robert S. Lasnik, expressed skepticism about the ongoing relevance of the case. This appeal was brought by Alaska Native and environmental groups, challenging the initial cancellation of these leases.

Central to the court's inquiry was whether a ruling on the appeal could still achieve its intended purpose, given subsequent actions by the federal government. Judge Friedland, appointed by former President Barack Obama, repeatedly probed the attorneys on whether upholding the previous Interior Secretary's decision to cancel the leases would genuinely prevent current federal leasing activities. This line of questioning highlighted the panel's concern that the matter might be entirely moot, especially since the current administration has already taken steps to reverse the earlier cancellation.

The Department of Justice, representing the current Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, strongly advocated for the case's dismissal. Attorney Thekla Hansen-Young informed the panel that the Interior Department had effectively rescinded the 2023 cancellation by issuing a new decision in 2025 that explicitly reaffirmed the validity of the leases. She argued that the core issues of the appeal were no longer pertinent, particularly in light of ongoing, separate litigation in an Alaska federal court that directly addresses active leasing efforts in the region.

The history of fossil fuel exploration in ANWR has been characterized by significant policy shifts across presidential administrations. The push to develop the reserve for oil and gas drilling opportunities gained momentum during the first Trump presidency. In 2017, Congress mandated the Interior Department to establish and manage a competitive oil and gas leasing program within the refuge, a directive embedded within the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Just prior to President Biden's inauguration in 2021, the state of Alaska, through its government-owned entity, the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), had secured seven land leases within the refuge. The subsequent Biden administration initially suspended these leases, leading to their eventual full cancellation by then-Interior Secretary Deb Haaland. This executive action formed the basis of the lawsuit now under review by the Ninth Circuit.

However, the policy trajectory reversed course once again. Following his return to office, President Donald Trump immediately overturned the Biden-era cancellation, reopening the refuge for fossil fuel extraction. This reversal was solidified by the Interior Department's 2025 decision. Furthermore, a new auction for over 70,000 acres of reserve land took place in June. AIDEA successfully acquired the majority of the land tracts that received bids, with private fossil fuel company Hex Energy LLC securing the remainder. By law, the state of Alaska receives 50% of the proceeds from these sales, effectively providing the state with a significant discount on its own purchases through AIDEA.

The core of the legal debate before the Ninth Circuit panel centered on the enduring relevance of the executive authority federal lease cancellation and the potential for Biden Trump ANWR lease reversal to render prior legal challenges obsolete. Brook Brisson, an attorney representing the Gwich'in Steering Committee, an Alaska Native environmental interests group, contended that preserving the Secretary's authority to cancel invalid leases holds significant weight. She argued that such a precedent is meaningful not only for the specific ANWR leases but also for a "number of other leases" administered under the same legal framework, including those in the western Arctic region of Alaska.

Despite these arguments, the appellate judges continued to express reservations about the practical outcome of their decision. They noted that even a reversal of the district court's decision, which had upheld the cancellation, might not halt drilling activities across the 400,000 acres of land in northern Alaska. This underscores the challenges inherent in litigation when executive policy shifts can rapidly alter the factual landscape. The ongoing litigation in Alaska federal court, scheduled for October, directly challenges the Trump administration's current leasing process, further complicating the legal picture and raising questions about which judicial venue will ultimately determine the fate of these sensitive lands.

This development highlights the legal complexities and potential mootness issues arising from executive reversals of federal land lease decisions, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas like ANWR. Lawyers advising energy clients or environmental groups should monitor this case for precedents on challenging or defending executive authority regarding federal resource extraction leases, given the high risk of policy shifts between administrations.

Source: Original reporting via CN