Cases 1 - 10 of 73
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS et al v. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION et al
as 1:2026cv03170
Plaintiff:
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS and ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
Defendant:
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION and OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552 Freedom of Information Act
National Parks Conservation Ass'n, et al v. US Dep't of the Interior, et al
as 26-1714
Plaintiff:
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR STATE AND LOCAL HISTORY, ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL PARK RANGERS, COALITION TO PROTECT AMERICA'S NATIONAL PARKS and others
Defendant:
US DEPT OF THE INTERIOR, DOUGLAS JAMES BURGUM, in the official capacity as Secretary of the Interior, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE and others
Petitioner:
BOSTON, MA
Sierra Club, et al v. DOE, et al
as 26-1115
Petitioner:
Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Michigan Environmental Council and others
Respondent:
United States Department of Energy and Chris Wright, in his official capacity as Secretary of Energy
Intervenor:
Consumers Energy Company
American Public Health Association, et al v. EPA, et al
as 26-1037
Petitioner:
American Public Health Association, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, American Lung Association and others
Respondent:
Environmental Protection Agency and Lee M. Zeldin, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Intervenor:
John Worthington, American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Institute and others
Amicus Curiae:
Government Accountability & Oversight, Government Oversight & Education, d/b/a Protect the Public's Trust, Ted Cruz, U.S. Senator and others
National Parks Conservation Association et al v. Department of the Interior et al
as 1:2026cv10877
Plaintiff:
National Parks Conservation Association, American Association for State and Local History, Association of National Park Rangers and others
Defendant:
Department of the Interior, Doug Burgum, National Park Service and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Sierra Club, et al v. DOE, et al
as 26-1024
Petitioner:
Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Michigan Environmental Council and others
Respondent:
United States Department of Energy and Chris Wright, in his official capacity as Secretary of Energy
Intervenor:
Consumers Energy Company
Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc., et al v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, et al
as 25-2163
Plaintiff:
COMITE DIALOGO AMBIENTAL, INC., ALIANZA COMUNITARIA AMBIENTALISTA DEL SURESTE, INC., CAMPAMENTO CONTRA LAS CENIZAS EN PENUELAS, INC. and others
Defendant:
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, US DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY, KAREN S. EVANS, Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency and others
Interested Party:
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
Amicus Curiae:
CAMBIO PR, INC., RESILIENCY LAW CENTER, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS and others
Sierra Club, et al v. DOE, et al
as 25-1198
Petitioner:
Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Michigan Environmental Council and others
Respondent:
United States Department of Energy and Christopher A. Wright, in his official capacity as Secretary of Energy
Intervenor:
Consumers Energy Company
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. et al v. Wright et al
as 1:2025cv12249
Plaintiff:
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. and Union of Concerned Scientists
Defendant:
Christopher Wright, United States Department of Energy and Climate Working Group
Amicus Curiae:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Sierra Club, et al v. DOE, et al
as 25-1160
Petitioner:
Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Michigan Environmental Council and others
Respondent:
United States Department of Energy and Christopher A. Wright, in his official capacity as Secretary of Energy
Amicus Curiae:
Consumers Energy Company, Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, Joshua C. Macey and others
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
