Although early news reports suggested that the new decision conflicts directly with a decision by the district court in Washington, DC, that also addressed snowmobiles in the parks, the two decisions actually covered different rulemakings, and each focused on the propriety of the rulemaking processes rather than snowmobiles as such. In essence, the Wyoming litigation challenged a decision in 2001 to phase out snowmobiles and ultimately ban them entirely in favor of snowcoaches, which are quieter and less polluting, and the DC litigation challenged a subsequent decision in 2003 to reverse the Clinton-era snowmobile ban.

Our accompanying analysis reveals a number of gaps and weaknesses in the reasoning used by the court to justify rejecting the snowcoach rule under NEPA and the APA. These faults in the reasoning are particularly worth noting in light of recent evidence that the partisan affiliation of the president who appointed a judge correlates with a judge’s tendency to rule in NEPA cases. True to form, Judge Clarence Brimmer, an appointee of a Republican president, Gerald Ford, made this NEPA ruling against the environmentalists' position. The same judge rejected the Clinton administration’s roadless rule in a NEPA challenge.

Click here for details on the ruling, the background of the snowmobile rules, and analysis of the decision.