On January 13, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon ruled that the U.S. Forest Service unlawfully created and applied a categorical exclusion, known as “CE-6,” which the agency had recently begun misusing to approve large-scale commercial logging projects. The court set aside the exclusion for future actions and vacated approvals for three major logging projects in southern Oregon.
The court found that the Forest Service failed to make the required findings under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that commercial logging would not cause significant environmental harm. As a result, the agency may no longer rely on CE-6 to bypass environmental analysis for planned or future projects.
The ruling states, “Because the record before the Court does not show the Forest Service considered the impact of thinning at any scale, commercial or otherwise, the Court cannot conclude the Forest Service engaged in a ‘reasoned decision’ regarding environmental impacts of the actions authorized by CE-6.”
“This ruling delivers a tremendous victory for forests and communities across the country,” said Erin Hogan-Freemole, attorney for WildEarth Guardians. “The Forest Service can no longer disregard environmental impacts simply because Trump ordered the agency to ramp up logging on the public’s forests. The court’s decision protects wildlife, water supplies, and our communities by closing this loophole that has allowed the Forest Service to authorize industrial-scale logging under the guise of restoration at great cost to our forests and all who depend on them.”
“The Forest Service’s defense of CE-6 was a house of cards,” said Oliver Stiefel, attorney with Crag Law Center. “There is — and never has been — any legal basis for the agency to use a regulation intended for small, innocuous projects for massive commercial logging projects instead. We’re pleased to see the Court put an end to the agency’s overreach.”
“Categorical exclusions,” or “CEs,” like CE-6 sidestep the environmental analysis and public participation required by federal environmental laws. Historically, they were used on small, non-controversial projects. In recent years, however, CEs have been deployed on larger projects, invoking increasingly controversial rationales for disregarding science and locking the public out of public lands management decisions. Community advocates and conservation organizations have warned that CEs are taking resources and focus away from wildfire projects that actually protect homes and communities in order to log mature and old-growth trees in the backcountry, away from public scrutiny.
“Invalidating CE-6 drags Trump’s Forest Service out of the shadows,” said John Persell, staff attorney for Oregon Wild. “They will no longer be able to use this bureaucratic loophole to hide the impacts of massive commercial logging projects or exclude the public from having a voice on how our public lands are managed.”
Environmental groups brought this suit in 2022, but the Forest Service had successfully stalled its resolution on the legal merits until recently. Once the court was able to consider the record and the scientific evidence, it swiftly ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor following oral arguments heard in December 2025.
In ruling for the plaintiffs, the court stated, “The Forest Service’s error here was as much a failure to put forth a reason as it was an error of reasoning.”
“The court’s decision does not block wildfire risk reduction,” Hogan-Freemole noted. “It simply requires the Forest Service to do what the law demands: analyze impacts honestly. We’re still working to understand the scope of this ruling, but it’s undeniably a huge win for forests and the public interest.”
“The most destructive fires of our time weren’t stopped by thinning, fuel breaks, or previously treated forests. They were wind-driven ember storms that ignited homes and turned neighborhoods into fuel,” said Ralph Bloemers, director of Fire Safe Communities. “The court’s ruling forces agencies to prove what they claim, analyze what they authorize, and stop treating communities as collateral damage in a logging strategy that will not save them.”
The court’s order does not affect existing timber contracts and allows the Forest Service to proceed with projects using proper environmental review or other lawful authorities — as the court explained, “setting aside CE-6 does not leave the Forest Service without alternatives to address wildfire risk.” Instead, it requires the agency to explain its decisions to the public before authorizing industrial-scale logging.
The lawsuit was brought by Oregon Wild, WildEarth Guardians, and Go Alliance, who challenged the Forest Service’s use of CE-6 to approve tens of thousands of acres of commercial thinning in the Fremont-Winema National Forest, and asked the court to block the rule’s application to commercial logging. The plaintiffs were represented by Hogan-Freemole and Oliver Stiefel and Meriel Derzen of Crag Law Center.
