Has the Biden administration brought back “sue-and-settle” to accomplish environmental goals without the bother of legislation or any other legitimate process?

Farm groups think so, and we think with good reason.

“Sue-and-settle” was a favorite tactic of the Obama administration to achieve what was otherwise impossible through the political process.

The scheme is simple. A special interest — environmentalists, for example — files a lawsuit against a federal agency’s actions or its regulations. Because these are regulations or actions that the administration does not support, lawyers for the government are told not to take the case to trial.

During the settlement talks, the special interests spell out changes in the agencies’ regulations. This in essence allows the agencies to write new regulations without having to go through the trouble of seeking public comment.

It’s a cozy arrangement with favored allies. But sweetheart litigation brought by environmental groups to expand an agency’s regulatory activities often runs against the wishes of Congress and the public.

And that seems to be what is happening again.

Last year, two environmental nonprofits filed a lawsuit accusing the U.S. Bureau of Land Management of unlawfully failing to examine the impacts on rangeland health and wildlife habitat from livestock grazing across the West.

The complaint alleges that BLM has violated the National Environmental Policy Act by neglecting to conduct examinations of numerous grazing allotments, in some cases for decades, even as permits with ranchers were repeatedly renewed.

The BLM and environmental plaintiffs have been engaged in negotiations for about six months, beginning shortly after the lawsuit was initially filed.

“The parties are actively engaged in settlement discussions and require additional time to determine whether the parties can agree to a settlement to dispose of this case,” federal attorneys said in a recent court filing.

Of course they are.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the Public Lands Council, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the American Sheep Industry Association are now asking a federal judge to let them intervene in the litigation.

Allowing farm and ranch groups to defend against the environmental lawsuit would prevent a settlement that’s meant to “sidestep” the “transparency and accountability” guaranteed by federal administrative law, they said.

The federal agency and environmental advocates are urging the judge not to allow agriculture organizations and state governments to intervene in the case, claiming they’re not directly affected by the litigation.

How could farmers and ranchers not be impacted by the litigation? The plaintiffs and the government don’t want parties that are interested in defending BLM grazing policy to get in the way.

We hear a lot these days about attempts to kill our democracy. Sue-and-settle seems to us a perfect example.

Changing policy through legislation would be messy and take years. Changing policy through the regulatory process would open it to a transparent system of review that would include public input.

Permanently binding future administrations with a policy that’s mandated by a federal court order sidesteps the public.

Government policies should get their day in court. If the administration won’t defend itself, interested parties should be allowed to take up the fight.