Filed Date: Dec. 11, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenges an oil drilling project in Alaska, which plaintiffs allege may cause long-term environmental harm resulting in population level impacts to the Teshekpuk Caribou Herd, and long-term harm to subsistence hunters and the communities that rely upon them for food security and health and wellbeing.
This lawsuit arose following the United States’ Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) approval of ConocoPhillips Alaska Incorporated’s seismic and exploration drilling program in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (the “project”). Plaintiffs, an Alaska-based grassroots organization made up of Iñupiat Peoples and community members, brought suit against BLM and its Alaska Branch, as well as the United States Department of the Interior on December 11, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska. The case was assigned to Chief District Judge Sharon L. Gleason.
The plaintiffs alleged that the federal government approved the project without a rigorous assessment of its long-term ecological damage. They asserted that BLM’s existing mitigation measures are scientifically inadequate, failing to account for insufficient snow cover and the disruption of vital subsistence resources for local Iñupiat communities. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants' conduct violated the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act (NPRPA), which requires the Secretary of the Interior to provide "maximum protection" to areas with significant subsistence and wildlife values and to mitigate "reasonably foreseeable and significantly adverse effects" on the Reserve's surface resources. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), because their approval of the project, despite evidence of the adverse environmental impact the project is likely to have, was arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with the law. The plaintiffs sought a vacatur of the decision to approve drilling in the reserve, as well as injunctive relief to ensure that the defendants comply with the NPRA and APA and to prevent irreparable harm to plaintiffs and to the environment until such compliance occurs.Along with their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the defendants from implementing the seismic drilling program pending a decision on the merits in this lawsuit.
On December 16, 2025 the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion, filed on December 12, to expedite consideration of preliminary injunctive relief.
On December 15, 2025, and December 23, 2025 respectively, ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc. and the State of Alaska moved to intervene. The court granted the corporation’s motion to intervene on December 16, 2025, and granted Alaska’s motion to intervene on December 29, 2025.
On December 29, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint identifying the State of Alaska and ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc. as Intervenor-Defendants and accounting for BLM’s issuance of a second final environmental assessment (EA), Finding of No New Significant Impacts (FONNSI), and Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision approving and finalizing the drilling project on December 23, 2025. This finalized document reduced the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area boundaries and eliminated the Colville River Special Area, which, per the amended complaint, both contain important habitats for numerous species.
On January 25, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a notice of incident relating to plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, which notified the court of an incident that occurred at the site of the drilling project. On January 23, Doyon 26, allegedly the largest mobile land drilling rig in North America, was en route for use in ConocoPhillips’ exploration program in the Reserve, when it tipped over and crashed. In their filing, the plaintiffs expressed concern about the incident and safety implications for the surrounding community, and requested that the defendants provide information about the incident.
ConocoPhillips filed a notice responding to the incident the next day, stating that the owner and operator of the rig is currently leading response and recovery efforts and that there is no threat to existing infrastructures or the community. The corporation also asserted that the incident is not material to the plaintiffs’ pending preliminary injunction.
On January 27, 2026, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary relief, finding that they failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits or show that there were "serious questions" regarding BLM’s decision to approve the project. The court noted that the NPRPA gives the Secretary of the Interior broad discretion to determine which mitigation measures are "necessary or appropriate". Consequently, the court must defer to the agency's choices unless they are arbitrary, which the plaintiffs had not shown. The court additionally found that BLM had conducted a "reasonably thorough analysis" of the exploration program’s potential impacts on various types of vegetation in the project area. 2026 WL 215560.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Sofia Yoder (2/13/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72025896/parties/sovereign-inupiat-for-a-living-arctic-v-burgum/
Gleason, Sharon Louise (Alaska)
Colon, Erin (Alaska)
Dooley, Ian S. (Alaska)
Grafe, Erik C. (Alaska)
Gramling, Mary Hunter (Alaska)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72025896/sovereign-inupiat-for-a-living-arctic-v-burgum/
Last updated March 28, 2026, 3:29 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 11, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
An Alaska-based grassroots organization made up of Iñupiat Peoples and community members
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Bureau of Land Management
United States Department of the Interior
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Other Dockets:
District of Alaska 3:25-cv-00356
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Environmental Justice and Resources:
Petroleum and petroleum byproducts
Case Summary of Sovereign Inupiat for a Living Arctic v. Burgum, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47495/ (last updated 2/13/2026).