## Facts

- The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued a 2015 rule regulating hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands, including requirements for wellbore integrity, chemical disclosure, and management of flowback fluids.
- Wyoming and Colorado (with Utah and North Dakota participating) and industry groups challenged the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and sought a preliminary injunction to block the rule from taking effect.
- Petitioners argued that Congress assigned federal authority over underground injection to the Environmental Protection Agency under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended SDWA to exclude most hydraulic fracturing (except diesel-fuel fracturing) from SDWA’s “underground injection” definition.
- BLM asserted authority under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), citing broad public-land management and mineral-leasing responsibilities, including environmental protection and waste prevention.
- Environmental organizations intervened in support of the rule, and the disputes were consolidated for decision on the preliminary-injunction motions.

## Issues

1. Whether petitioners were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that BLM lacked statutory authority under FLPMA/MLA to regulate hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands in light of SDWA as amended in 2005.
2. Whether petitioners satisfied the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, and public interest) to prevent the rule from taking effect.

## Decision

- The court granted a preliminary injunction and enjoined enforcement of the 2015 BLM fracking rule nationwide pending further proceedings.
- The court held petitioners showed a strong likelihood of success on the merits that BLM exceeded its statutory authority.
- The court also found petitioners made a sufficient showing that the rule was likely arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
- The court found irreparable harm from imminent compliance costs, operational disruptions, and regulatory uncertainty.
- The balance of harms and the public interest favored an injunction because there is no public interest in implementing agency action likely beyond statutory authority.

## Legal Principles

- An agency must identify statutory authority for major regulatory action; broad land-management or leasing statutes cannot be used to accomplish what a more specific and later-enacted statutory scheme indicates Congress withheld or reassigned.
- When Congress has directly addressed an issue through specific statutory text, courts need not defer to an agency interpretation that conflicts with that congressional choice.
- Under the APA, agency rules are unlawful if issued in excess of statutory jurisdiction or if they are arbitrary and capricious, including where the agency fails to adequately justify requirements or address existing regulatory regimes.
- Preliminary injunctive relief requires a showing of likely success on the merits, irreparable harm absent relief, that the balance of equities favors relief, and that relief serves the public interest.

## Conclusion

The court preliminarily blocked BLM’s fracking rule, concluding petitioners were likely to prevail that Congress’s SDWA framework (as amended in 2005) left most hydraulic fracturing regulation outside the asserted federal reach and that the rule likely suffered APA defects, with the remaining injunction factors favoring immediate relief.


Wyoming v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 136 F. Supp. 3d 1317 (D. Wyo. 2015)