FOLLOW US

A Wisconsin federal judge has sided with the government and utilities, rejecting all claims in the Wis Wildlife Refuge lawsuit that challenged approval of a land exchange allowing a massive power line to carve through federally protected land. Conservationists had argued the deal violated cornerstone environmental protections, but U.S. District Judge William M. Conley ruled otherwise Wednesday.

The ruling extinguishes a high-profile attempt to stop the Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission line, a 101-mile project already humming with power since September 2024.

The Clash Over the Refuge

The plaintiffs—National Wildlife Refuge Association, Driftless Area Land Conservancy, and Wisconsin Wildlife Federation—launched the case in March 2024, targeting the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. They claimed that federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rural Utilities Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, broke multiple laws by approving a land swap deal with ITC Midwest LLC and Dairyland Power Cooperative.

Their argument: the exchange flouted the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (NWRSIA), the Administrative Procedure Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

But Judge Conley rejected that theory. While acknowledging the project’s completion did not moot the case, he held that the land exchange did not require the strict “compatibility” analysis that plaintiffs insisted upon. Instead, he ruled the law only demanded that exchanged land be “suitable” and provide a net benefit to the refuge.

Legal Loopholes or Legal Logic?

Conservation groups warned that accepting the government’s interpretation opened the door for abuse, effectively allowing major infrastructure projects to sidestep refuge protections. Conley called that their “most sympathetic argument” but dismissed it, saying federal law already imposes safeguards, just not to the extent environmentalists preferred.

He further concluded that the refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) did not bar land swaps, granting the Fish and Wildlife Service broad discretion. On NEPA claims, the judge also ruled against the plaintiffs, finding no procedural violations in environmental review or public comment.

Reactions From Both Sides

Utilities hailed the decision. Counsel Thomas C. Jensen said opposition to the transmission line was “self-defeating,” calling the project vital for moving renewable energy across the Midwest grid. In a joint statement, ITC Midwest and Dairyland declared the ruling ends “several years of serial litigation” against the project.

The conservationists, however, signaled disappointment. Their attorney Howard A. Learner stressed that while the court acknowledged some of their points, “the groups are disappointed by the ultimate decision on the statutory standards applying to large transmission lines running through protected National Wildlife Refuges.” The groups are now reviewing potential next steps.

Who Stood in the Courtroom

• Plaintiffs: Represented by Daniel H.B. Abrams, Wendy Bloom, and Howard A. Learner of the Environmental Law & Policy Center.

• Federal agencies: Represented by DOJ attorneys Kimberly A. Cullen, Reade Wilson, and U.S. Attorney’s Office counsel Leslie K. Herje.

• ITC Midwest: Represented by Fredrikson & Byron PA, Perkins Coie LLP, and Greenberg Traurig LLP.

• Dairyland Power Cooperative: Represented by Fredrikson & Byron PA, Perkins Coie LLP, and Greenberg Traurig LLP.