Chevron Files Motion to Intervene in Environmental Lawsuit to Stop Lease Sale BBG1

On November 24th, we wrote about the lawsuit Healthy Gulf v. Doug Burgum, Secretary of the Interior filed before Judge Mehta in federal court in Washington, D.C. and seeking to enjoin upcoming lease sales mandated by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). On December 1, 2025, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. filed a motion to intervene. The federal defendants took no position on the motion to intervene, and the plaintiffs did not oppose the intervention, “but may request conditions on any additional intervenors that would apply to Chevron”.

Chevron seeks intervention because it has substantial interest in Lease Sale BBG1, as it regularly bids on Gulf lease sales; plans to bid on leases in the Lease Sale BBG1; and has invested significant time and money in preparation of the sale. Chevron fully expects to be awarded leases under Lease Sale BBG1. Chevron has been allowed to intervene in past challenges to Gulf lease sales, such as Sales 250, 251, 259 and 261. Coincidentally, Judge Mehta was assigned to the prior cases affecting Lease Sales 259 and 261 and granted Chevron’s previous motions to intervene.

In a well written memorandum in support, Chevron argues (i) it is entitled to intervene; (ii) the motion is timely; (iii) Chevron has an interest in the subject matter; (iv) denying intervention would impair Chevron’s ability to protect its interests; and (v) Chevron’s interest are not adequately represented by existing parties.  Chevron’s position is that based on the foregoing, it has satisfied its “minimal” burden of showing the current representation is in adequate. Chevron noted that the federal defendants have been less vigorous in defending against leasing challenges than Chevron. For example, it cited the fact that the government did not appeal an adverse decision and did not move for a stay in the recent Rice’s Whale case of Sierra Club v. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. 8:20-cv-03060 (D. Md.) that would have “devastating operational impacts that would have resulted from a vacatur.” Alternatively, Chevron seeks permissive intervention as it has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law and fact; the motion is timely; Chevron will defend the federal defendants’ actions, including the imposed NEPA and APA standards; and finally, nothing substantive has yet happened in the case.

In support of the motion to intervene, Chevron also attached a Declaration by its General Manger Land, Base Assets and Offshore and a Proposed Answer of Intervenor-Defendant Chevron U.S.A., Inc. to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, where Chevron responded to the 130 paragraphs in the complaint and asserted affirmative defenses.