In an Order issued on May 18, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied a motion for a stay pending appeal filed by a coalition of environmental groups, who sought to halt the construction of a pipeline project in Virginia and North Carolina.

At issue in the case, Haw River Assembly, et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al., No. 26-1470 (4th Cir.), was a permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.  The permit was required because Transco’s project involves placing pipeline through streams and wetlands.  The Army Corps issued the permit to Transco on February 19, 2026.  Approximately two months later, the environmental groups submitted a petition for review under Section 19(d)(1) of the Natural Gas Act and subsequently filed a motion for a stay pending appeal.

In their motion, the environmental group Petitioners argued that the Army Corps’ issuance of the Section 404 permit was arbitrary and capricious for two reasons.  First, they contended that under applicable regulatory guidelines there is a presumption that alternatives to discharges into “special aquatic sites” are available and Transco had failed to rebut this presumption.  Accordingly, Petitioners argued Transco had not shown that its proposal to utilize “dry-ditch, open-cut crossings” was the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) for placing pipeline through certain aquatic sites.  Second, Petitioners argued the Army Corps had not taken account of the cumulative impacts of Transco’s project on the aquatic ecosystem.

Transco intervened in the appeal and, in its opposition to Petitioners’ motion, Transco emphasized that “Americans need the affordable and reliable energy [the project] will deliver,” and noted that “[c]onstruction is now well underway.”  Transco maintained that it had provided the Army Corps with a “comprehensive evaluation of pipeline installation alternatives,” detailing pros and cons of each method, and had shown that its use of dry open cuts in some locations satisfied the Section 404 regulations.  Transco further noted that granting a stay would “imperil hundreds of workers now deployed across [the] Project site and the very environmental resources Petitioners say they want to protect, all while costing Transco scores of millions of dollars and creating fuel insecurity and price volatility” for energy consumers.  During oral argument held on May 13, at least one member of the panel emphasized Transco’s ongoing construction work as well as the energy shortage that Transco’s pipeline would address.

In its Order denying Petitioners’ motion, the court of appeals stressed that the arbitrary and capricious standard is “highly deferential” toward the agency.  And in this case, the court concluded, Petitioners had “show[n] no more than a disagreement with how the Corps evaluated the alternatives and cumulative evidence.”  The court observed that Transco had submitted an analysis of alternatives, as well as a description of the project’s cumulative impacts, and the Corps had considered that information carefully.  Although “Petitioners want more . . . Transco (and the Corps) did enough,” and the court was “satisfied at this preliminary stage that the Corps’ permitting decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious.”

Notably, the court specifically observed that Transco had begun construction on the project in March, shortly after its receipt of the permit.  “On this record,” the court stated, “we decline to hit pause.”  The court’s observation regarding the effect of granting a stay when construction already was well underway, taken in the broader context of increasing energy demands, which the panel acknowledged during argument, is a reminder that courts are receptive to arguments highlighting on-the-ground impacts.

Share | Email| Print| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Appeals, Agency Action, Army Corps, Citizen Suit, Clean Water Act, Energy, Fourth Circuit, Natural Gas, Natural Gas Act, North Carolina, Oil and Gas, Permits, Pipelines, West Virginia, Wetlands