- Joined
- May 8, 2008
- Threads
- 2,157
- Messages
- 2,157
On May 5, 2026, BlueRibbon Coalition and BRC Member John Stewart filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. United States Bureau of Land Management, et al. (Case No. 26-2596).
This intervention is necessary because the legal fight has moved to a new courtroom, and if we are not a party in that courtroom, there is no voice fighting on behalf of the recreation community that have explored these lands for generations.
On April 15, 2026, we filed a Motion to Intervene in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the trial court where Judge Susan Illston issued the order closing approximately 2,200 miles of motorized routes in the Western Mojave. That filing put us in the courtroom where the underlying record was built.
After we filed, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Notice of Appeal on behalf of the Federal Defendants. That moved the case into the appellate system. The Ninth Circuit is now the venue where the legality of Judge Illston's order will be reviewed. Federal procedure treats these as two separate proceedings, even though the case is the same. To stay in the fight, we have to be a party in both.
If you read our April 16 update on our first intervention filing, you already know the basics of why BRC stepped in: no party in this case represents OHV users. The plaintiffs, led by the Center for Biological Diversity, sought the closures. The federal government is defending its own administrative process. Nobody is in that courtroom fighting specifically for riders, families, and the small businesses that depend on access to the West Mojave. That has not changed. What has changed is the venue, and with it, the legal questions at stake.
This is not a copy of our April motion filed in a different court. The legal arguments and standards on appeal are different from the arguments at the trial court level.
At the Ninth Circuit, a panel of judges will review whether the district court applied the correct legal standards to a fully developed record. That review is shaped by case law that did not exist when this lawsuit was first filed, including the U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County. The Department of Justice will defend BLM's administrative process on appeal, but the federal government is not positioned to advance every argument that matters to OHV users. Our intervention is intended to fill that gap.
Our motion identifies three issues we plan to raise.
First, the district court's order closes OHV routes while leaving other categories of access open on the same routes, including administrative use, established easements, emergency access, and other permitted uses. If the court's concern is impacts to the desert tortoise, there is no basis for singling out OHV recreation while allowing other motorized activity on the same roads. The federal government has limited incentive to challenge that distinction because BLM does not bear the direct restriction.
Second, the district court evaluated BLM's environmental review using a results-oriented standard that conflicts with the Supreme Court's Seven County decision. The Supreme Court made clear that NEPA is a procedural requirement, not a substantive mandate. The district court faulted BLM for not demonstrating specific outcomes rather than evaluating whether the agency followed the required decision-making process. That is the kind of legal error the Ninth Circuit exists to correct.
Third, the district court's analysis of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act contains an internal contradiction. The court upheld BLM's compliance with FLPMA's broad "unnecessary and undue degradation" standard while simultaneously finding that BLM violated the minimization criteria, then treated that finding as grounds to impose sweeping closures. BLM, defending its own record, has limited reason to press that inconsistency. We do, because it directly affects the scope of what happens on remand.
The stakes here are not abstract. The WEMO planning area covers approximately 1.9 million acres of BLM-managed land between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. The original route network was approximately 15,235 miles. BLM's 2019 Record of Decision, after years of environmental review and public input, left roughly 6,247 miles open. Judge Illston's January 2026 order cuts that to approximately 4,047 miles.
Even the most restrictive alternative BLM analyzed during its NEPA process would have left 4,912 miles open. The court went 2,200 miles beyond that. That outcome was never evaluated in any NEPA alternative and was never part of the public planning process.
Between one and 1.5 million acres of public land are now largely inaccessible to motorized recreation. The closures are scheduled to remain in place until at least October 14, 2029.
For those who have followed our WEMO Deep Dive report, this filing is the legal action that addresses the problems we have been documenting.
Part 1, "The Rigged System," explained how BLM spent two decades and analyzed every route, closed thousands of miles, and was told by the court it still was not enough. Today's filing confronts that pattern directly. By raising the Seven County argument, we are asking the Ninth Circuit to apply the correct legal standard to BLM's record, rather than allowing the district court's results-oriented approach to stand as the template for every future travel plan in the West.
Part 2, "The Endless Standard," documented how the open-ended nature of the minimization criteria has been used as a perpetual basis for litigation. Our FLPMA argument before the Ninth Circuit addresses that head-on by challenging the inconsistency in how those criteria were applied below.
Part 3, "The Insider," covered the institutional dynamics that shaped this outcome. The fact that the Federal Defendants take no position on our intervention, and that the plaintiffs are actively opposing it, is consistent with what that section described. It reinforces why a separate, dedicated voice for OHV users is necessary at every level of this case.
The report laid out the problem. This filing is one piece of how we are fighting back.
If the Ninth Circuit grants our motion, BRC and John Stewart will be formal parties to the appeal with the right to file briefs, present oral argument, and pursue further review if necessary.
If intervention is denied, the appeal proceeds without a dedicated voice for the OHV community in the appellate courtroom. The federal government can choose to settle, narrow its arguments, or withdraw the appeal at any point. Without intervenor status, we would have no procedural tool to keep the OHV-specific issues before the court.
This case is a legal fight, but its outcome will be felt in driveways, garages, and small businesses across California and the West. If you ride, camp, or work in the Western Mojave, this case affects you directly. If you do not, the precedent set here will not stay in California.
Read the WEMO Deep Dive report and the Take Action page so you understand the case and can speak about it accurately. Share the report with your network. And consider becoming a member or contributing to our legal fund, because appellate litigation requires sustained, experienced representation, and we are funded by the people we serve.
We will continue to update our supporters as the case proceeds.
Continue reading...
This intervention is necessary because the legal fight has moved to a new courtroom, and if we are not a party in that courtroom, there is no voice fighting on behalf of the recreation community that have explored these lands for generations.
What Changed Since April
On April 15, 2026, we filed a Motion to Intervene in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the trial court where Judge Susan Illston issued the order closing approximately 2,200 miles of motorized routes in the Western Mojave. That filing put us in the courtroom where the underlying record was built.
After we filed, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Notice of Appeal on behalf of the Federal Defendants. That moved the case into the appellate system. The Ninth Circuit is now the venue where the legality of Judge Illston's order will be reviewed. Federal procedure treats these as two separate proceedings, even though the case is the same. To stay in the fight, we have to be a party in both.
If you read our April 16 update on our first intervention filing, you already know the basics of why BRC stepped in: no party in this case represents OHV users. The plaintiffs, led by the Center for Biological Diversity, sought the closures. The federal government is defending its own administrative process. Nobody is in that courtroom fighting specifically for riders, families, and the small businesses that depend on access to the West Mojave. That has not changed. What has changed is the venue, and with it, the legal questions at stake.
Why the Ninth Circuit Filing Is Different
This is not a copy of our April motion filed in a different court. The legal arguments and standards on appeal are different from the arguments at the trial court level.
At the Ninth Circuit, a panel of judges will review whether the district court applied the correct legal standards to a fully developed record. That review is shaped by case law that did not exist when this lawsuit was first filed, including the U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County. The Department of Justice will defend BLM's administrative process on appeal, but the federal government is not positioned to advance every argument that matters to OHV users. Our intervention is intended to fill that gap.
Our motion identifies three issues we plan to raise.
First, the district court's order closes OHV routes while leaving other categories of access open on the same routes, including administrative use, established easements, emergency access, and other permitted uses. If the court's concern is impacts to the desert tortoise, there is no basis for singling out OHV recreation while allowing other motorized activity on the same roads. The federal government has limited incentive to challenge that distinction because BLM does not bear the direct restriction.
Second, the district court evaluated BLM's environmental review using a results-oriented standard that conflicts with the Supreme Court's Seven County decision. The Supreme Court made clear that NEPA is a procedural requirement, not a substantive mandate. The district court faulted BLM for not demonstrating specific outcomes rather than evaluating whether the agency followed the required decision-making process. That is the kind of legal error the Ninth Circuit exists to correct.
Third, the district court's analysis of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act contains an internal contradiction. The court upheld BLM's compliance with FLPMA's broad "unnecessary and undue degradation" standard while simultaneously finding that BLM violated the minimization criteria, then treated that finding as grounds to impose sweeping closures. BLM, defending its own record, has limited reason to press that inconsistency. We do, because it directly affects the scope of what happens on remand.
The Numbers Behind This Case
The stakes here are not abstract. The WEMO planning area covers approximately 1.9 million acres of BLM-managed land between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. The original route network was approximately 15,235 miles. BLM's 2019 Record of Decision, after years of environmental review and public input, left roughly 6,247 miles open. Judge Illston's January 2026 order cuts that to approximately 4,047 miles.
Even the most restrictive alternative BLM analyzed during its NEPA process would have left 4,912 miles open. The court went 2,200 miles beyond that. That outcome was never evaluated in any NEPA alternative and was never part of the public planning process.
Between one and 1.5 million acres of public land are now largely inaccessible to motorized recreation. The closures are scheduled to remain in place until at least October 14, 2029.
WEMO Deep Dive Report
For those who have followed our WEMO Deep Dive report, this filing is the legal action that addresses the problems we have been documenting.
Part 1, "The Rigged System," explained how BLM spent two decades and analyzed every route, closed thousands of miles, and was told by the court it still was not enough. Today's filing confronts that pattern directly. By raising the Seven County argument, we are asking the Ninth Circuit to apply the correct legal standard to BLM's record, rather than allowing the district court's results-oriented approach to stand as the template for every future travel plan in the West.
Part 2, "The Endless Standard," documented how the open-ended nature of the minimization criteria has been used as a perpetual basis for litigation. Our FLPMA argument before the Ninth Circuit addresses that head-on by challenging the inconsistency in how those criteria were applied below.
Part 3, "The Insider," covered the institutional dynamics that shaped this outcome. The fact that the Federal Defendants take no position on our intervention, and that the plaintiffs are actively opposing it, is consistent with what that section described. It reinforces why a separate, dedicated voice for OHV users is necessary at every level of this case.
The report laid out the problem. This filing is one piece of how we are fighting back.
What Happens Next
If the Ninth Circuit grants our motion, BRC and John Stewart will be formal parties to the appeal with the right to file briefs, present oral argument, and pursue further review if necessary.
If intervention is denied, the appeal proceeds without a dedicated voice for the OHV community in the appellate courtroom. The federal government can choose to settle, narrow its arguments, or withdraw the appeal at any point. Without intervenor status, we would have no procedural tool to keep the OHV-specific issues before the court.
How You Can Help
This case is a legal fight, but its outcome will be felt in driveways, garages, and small businesses across California and the West. If you ride, camp, or work in the Western Mojave, this case affects you directly. If you do not, the precedent set here will not stay in California.
Read the WEMO Deep Dive report and the Take Action page so you understand the case and can speak about it accurately. Share the report with your network. And consider becoming a member or contributing to our legal fund, because appellate litigation requires sustained, experienced representation, and we are funded by the people we serve.
We will continue to update our supporters as the case proceeds.
Continue reading...