Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
We the Patriots, Inc. v. Michelle Lujan Grisham
On Sept. 7, 2023, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham issued an executive order declaring a state of public health emergency given increased rates of gun violence in New Mexico.
The next day, the New Mexico Department of Health issued the first public health order restricting firearm possession by any person within cities or counties with high rates of violent crime on state property, at public schools and in public parks.
On Sept. 13, 2023, the district court heard a request for a temporary restraining order from five sets of plaintiffs in this consolidated action. The district court issued the TRO, which enjoined various sections of the first PHO.
Two days later, the New Mexico DOH issued an amended PHO, eliminating portions of the first PHO. Shortly after, some of the consolidated plaintiffs filed requests for ex parte TROs and preliminary injunctions directed at the amended PHO.
Before the district court could rule on the motions directed at the amended PHO, the New Mexico DOH issued the second amended PHO on Oct. 6, 2023, which is at issue in this appeal.
Lujan Grisham also issued a renewed executive order, extending the public health emergency until Nov. 3, 2023.
On Oct. 9, 2023, the current motion for a preliminary injunction was filed. The motion sought to enjoin enforcement of the second amended PHO’s restriction on carrying firearms in public parks and playgrounds.
On Oct. 11, 2023, the district court denied the motion on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. The plaintiffs appealed.
According to the opinion, the relief the plaintiffs sought, a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the second amended PHO’s public parks restriction, was granted by the district court in Springer v. Grisham shortly after this appeal commenced. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the injunction in the Springer case seriously undercut the plaintiffs’ ability to show the existence of a continued case or controversy as to the public parks restriction.
The 10th Circuit concluded that the issue was moot and that it lacked jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal as it pertained to the public parks restriction.
The 10th Circuit also concluded that, because the alleged injury of the plaintiffs is not redressable in regards to the playground restriction, the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek a preliminary injunction. But the court expressed no opinion regarding the plaintiffs’ ability to show redressability regarding other forms of relief not in the 10th Circuit.
The 10th circuit dismissed the appeal.
Western Watershed Project, et al. v. Vilsack, et al.
Western Watershed Project, Rocky Mountain Wild and Wild Earth Guardians challenged, under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Thunder Basin National Grassland 2020 Plan Amendment adopted by the U.S. Forest Service.
Specifically, Western Watershed Project argues that the plan amendment failed to comply with the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
The district court found that the plan amendment complied with both the ESA and NEPA and entered final judgment upholding it.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the Western Watershed Project that the USFS issued an unduly narrow purpose and need statement, failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives and failed to take the required “hard look” under NEPA at environmental consequences of the plan amendment before adopting it.
The 10th Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings to determine the appropriate remedy.