On October 6, 2025, the NAM filed an amicus brief urging the 9th Circuit to honor the federal government’s approval of a land exchange for the Resolution Copper Mine, an Arizona parcel home to the world’s third-largest known copper deposit. This case arises from years-long legal challenges by various tribal, environmental and regional groups seeking to halt construction of the mine. The question raised in this chapter of the litigation is whether the U.S. Forest Service’s environmental impact statement complied with NEPA. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that in approving the project, the Forest Service failed to consider the potential “indirect” impacts of the copper mine, along with the cumulative environmental impacts of other activities in the surrounding area—neither of which are required for review under NEPA. After the Arizona district court denied the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs promptly appealed the denial to the 9th Circuit.
In our brief, we emphasize the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent holding in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County which requires courts to defer to the relevant agency’s discretion on the scope of a NEPA review. As the Court explained in Seven County—NEPA is a purely procedural statute that was not intended to place substantive restraints on agency decision making. Deference to agency analysis and expertise is “the bedrock principle of judicial review in NEPA cases.” NEPA challenges have become a popular tool for activist groups seeking to interfere with the permitting and construction of certain projects, and they have prevented a number of critical projects from ever reaching completion. The Supreme Court intended Seven County to serve as a “course correction” in this space, ensuring that delayed NEPA review will no longer increase the costs of critical projects or stymie infrastructure growth.