Marin Audubon Society v. FAA
Unpublished (Filed February 28, 2025) (2025)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may grant a joint, unopposed motion to stay its mandate vacating an agency action, even after denying rehearing, where immediate vacatur would cause disruptive consequences and potentially harm the public interest or leave the prevailing party in a worse position, grounded in equitable considerations.
Facts:
- The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Park Service (NPS) adopted an air tour management plan for four Bay Area national parks.
- Organizations like the Marin Audubon Society and an area resident (Petitioners) challenged this plan, arguing its environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was flawed.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit determined that the Agencies' NEPA analysis was arbitrary and capricious and vacated the air tour management plan.
- If the court's order vacating the plan were to take immediate effect, a prior interim system would be revived, which authorized nearly twice as many flights for two park units and even more for the other two, frustrating Petitioners' goals to reduce overflights.
- Petitioners and the Agencies agreed that immediate vacatur without a stay would harm the protected park units and the people Congress intended to protect.
Procedural Posture:
- Marin Audubon Society and other organizations, along with an area resident (Petitioners), filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenging an air tour management plan adopted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Park Service (NPS) (Agencies).
- The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision vacating the air tour management plan, finding the Agencies' NEPA analysis arbitrary and capricious (Marin Audubon Society v. FAA, 121 F.4th 902 (D.C. Cir. 2024)).
- The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently denied joint petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc in the underlying case.
- Petitioners and the Agencies jointly filed an unopposed motion to stay the issuance of the mandate vacating the air tour management plan with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit grant a joint, unopposed motion to stay the issuance of its mandate vacating an air tour management plan, when both the prevailing petitioners and the federal agencies agree that immediate vacatur would lead to disruptive and injurious outcomes?
Opinions:
Majority - Randolph, Senior Circuit Judge
Yes, the court should grant the joint motion to stay the issuance of its mandate because immediate vacatur of the air tour management plan would cause disruptive and potentially injurious effects that tilt both the equities and public interest factors in favor of a stay. The court regularly stays vacatur judgments to ameliorate potentially harsh consequences, drawing guidance from analogous questions. While traditional stay factors like 'likelihood of success on the merits' and 'irreparable harm' from the Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC test are less relevant after a final merits decision, factors such as 'the prospect that others will be harmed if the court grants the stay' (equities) and 'the public interest in granting the stay' remain pertinent. The court's practice in these situations also resembles 'remand-without-vacatur' cases, where vacatur would leave the prevailing party worse off, as seen in Env’t Def. Fund, Inc. v. Adm’r and NACS v. Bd. of Governors. The parties' argument that immediate vacatur would revive an interim system with significantly more flights, thereby harming the very places and people Congress intended to protect, aligns with these equitable considerations. The Agencies have stated they need 12 months to comply with the court's decision, justifying the requested duration of the stay.
Concurring - Srinivasan, Chief Judge
Yes, the court should grant the joint motion to stay the mandate. Chief Judge Srinivasan concurs for substantially the same reasons articulated in his previous opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in the underlying case (Marin Audubon Soc’y v. FAA, 121 F.4th 902, 920 (D.C. Cir. 2024)). His view is that vacatur without any stay would result in the prevailing parties being put in a worse position regarding the environmental protections than if they had never brought their legal challenge.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the D.C. Circuit's approach to staying mandates that vacate agency actions, especially when both parties jointly request such a stay. It emphasizes that in these circumstances, equitable considerations and practical effects on the public interest and the parties (including whether vacatur would disadvantage the prevailing party) take precedence over traditional stay factors like likelihood of success on the merits. The decision provides an important tool for agencies and litigants to prevent unintended negative consequences from judicial remedies, allowing for an orderly transition when an agency action is invalidated. This flexibility can ensure environmental protections or other regulatory schemes are not inadvertently undermined during the remand process.
