Wyoming v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al.

Environmental Groups appeal the Wyoming district court's order setting aside and permanently enjoining the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule), which the Forest Service promulgated in 2001. In setting aside the Roadless Rule, the district court held that the rule violated the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Wilderness Act), and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). On appeal, the Forest Service and the Environmental Groups ask the Appeals Court to hold that the Roadless Rule was not promulgated in violation of the Wilderness Act or NEPA, and should the Court was to conclude that the rule was promulgated in violation of federal law, nevertheless reverse the district court's order establishing a permanent nationwide injunction. Plaintiff-Appellee State of Wyoming and Intervenor-Appellee Colorado Mining Association (CMA) request the Appeals Court to affirm the district court order on the grounds that the rule does in fact violate the Wilderness Act and NEPA. The Appeals Court indicates that, "In the event that we conclude that the Roadless Rule complies with the Wilderness Act and NEPA, they ask us to affirm on the alternate grounds that the rule was promulgated in violation of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA), and also the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The Appeals Court reversed the district court's order granting Plaintiff's declaratory relief and issuing a permanent injunction, and remanded the case for the district court to vacate the permanent injunction. Regarding the permanent injunction remedy the Appeals Court said, "The district court permanently enjoined the Roadless Rule on a nationwide basis...Although the district court acknowledged that the issuance of a permanent injunction 'is an extraordinary remedy,' it nevertheless found that a permanent injunction was proper... In order to obtain a permanent injunction, a party must prove: '(1) actual success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm unless the injunction is issued; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the harm that the injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) the injunction, if issued, will not adversely affect the public interest.' . . We review a district court's grant of a permanent injunction for an abuse of discretion. . . examining its factual findings for clear error and its legal determinations de novo. . . As discussed. . . Wyoming failed to demonstrate that the Forest Service's promulgation of the Roadless Rule violated the Wilderness Act, NEPA, MUSYA, or NFMA. Thus, the district court abused its discretion in permanently enjoining the Roadless Rule on a nationwide basis because the court's action was based on the erroneous legal conclusion that Wyoming had succeeded on the merits of its claims".