Nothing new here. The case in question is the Rosemount case, which I have reviewed.  This is what I wrote here in August after the BLM filed their final arguments:

Firstly, as I expected, the BLM have modified their argument in response to the recently affirmed Rosemont case (similar but different facts), by subordinating the “valid existing rights” argument, which they had mainly relied upon in the Preliminary Injunction case. They now principally argue that to impose the provisions of the Resource Management Plan (ARMPA) on Thacker Pass would effectively disallow the operation, which is not within their discretion, and would contravene the Mining Law. In my view, the BLM case is now stronger because it minimises any potential adverse effect of the Rosemont precedent.

Secondly, the BLM have argued that should the Court conclude the ROD approval process was insufficient in some aspect, the BLM should be given the opportunity to correct its action, without vacating the ROD. The rather bold implication is that the BLM believes any shortcoming would ultimately have no impact on the ROD or the Conditions of Approval. In their argument, LAC has also highlighted the “public interest” in allowing the project to proceed without delay.

With so many arguments thrown at the BLM by the Plaintiffs, we are perhaps all concerned that one of these arguments might “stick” – i.e. the BLM is found to have violated Federal Law. But I am increasingly comfortable that any such shortcoming will be minor, that common sense will prevail, and the BLM will be given the opportunity to rectify any shortcoming, without the ROD being vacated.