Case Explained: Hoffman, et al. v. United States Department of Treasury, et al.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-07

Docket: 5:25-CV-04003-HLT-BGS)

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, holding that the landowners and the City of Rossville lacked Article III standing to challenge the United States Department of Treasury’s regulations implementing the Inflation Reduction Act. The court applied the three-part test for constitutional standing, requiring a plaintiff to demonstrate an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, fairly traceable to the challenged action, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to establish an “injury in fact” under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). While NEPA procedural violations can constitute standing if they create an increased risk of actual environmental harm, the court found the plaintiffs’ alleged injury was speculative and not imminent. The plaintiffs claimed injury because Treasury regulations did not mandate NEPA compliance for IRA tax credits, but the court noted that NEPA requires agencies to analyze the environmental impact of their own discretionary actions. Here, there was no discretionary agency action by Treasury regarding the specific Jeffrey Solar project; the project’s construction is a private decision by Jeffrey Solar LLC, not an agency action subject to Treasury approval. Consequently, the plaintiffs could not show that Treasury’s failure to mandate NEPA review created a concrete, imminent risk of environmental harm to their property. Because this essential element was missing, the court did not reach the issues of traceability or redressability. As a practical consequence, the judgment of the district court is affirmed, and the plaintiffs’ claims against the Federal Defendants and the intervenor defendant are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The appeal regarding the preliminary injunction is denied as moot due to the dismissal of the underlying claims.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.