Aland v. U.S. Department of the Interior

Background

Robert H. Aland sued the U.S. Department of the Interior and other defendants seeking review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2020 rule removing federal Endangered Species Act protection for gray wolves across much of the lower forty-eight states. Aland alleged that the Service failed to meet a 12-month deadline for publishing the rule and improperly considered political factors. He asked the court to declare the rule unlawful and vacate it.

Two related cases challenged the same 2020 rule. In February 2022, this court granted in part the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment in those cases and vacated the rule. Federal and intervenor-defendants appealed that judgment to the Ninth Circuit, and the appeals were pending when this order was issued. The rule was therefore not in effect during the appeals.

Aland had filed this case in the Northern District of Illinois, which transferred it to the Northern District of California. Aland moved to compel production of the administrative record. The Federal Defendants later moved to stay this case until the appeals in the related cases were resolved.

Analysis

The court applied the standard governing a stay, which is a temporary pause in litigation. It considered three factors: possible harm to Aland, hardship or unfairness to the Federal Defendants, and whether a stay would promote the orderly and efficient resolution of the case.

The court found that Aland would not suffer harm from a stay because the challenged rule had already been vacated and would remain vacated during the appellate proceedings. The court characterized Aland’s concern about a possible period in which wolf slaughter might resume as speculative and found that he had not shown an urgent need to litigate immediately.

The court also found that proceeding before the appeals were resolved could cause hardship and unfairness to the Federal Defendants. The case was in its early stages, and the Ninth Circuit’s decision could make the entire action moot or require the court to reconsider issues later, resulting in unnecessary proceedings and expenses.

Finally, the court found that the appeals would likely simplify the case. The Ninth Circuit’s rulings would inform the court’s consideration of Aland’s claims, including his claim concerning political interference. The court therefore concluded that staying the case would conserve judicial and party resources.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the Federal Defendants’ motion to stay and stayed the litigation pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the appeals in the related cases. The parties must file notice with this court no later than ten days after the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

Because of the stay, the court DENIED Aland’s motion to compel production of the administrative record WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal once the stay is lifted. This order decided the motions to stay and compel; it did not decide the merits of Aland’s challenge to the 2020 rule.