← all cases
National Parks Conservation Association v. Department of the Interior
D. Mass. · 1:26-cv-10877 · 2026 · CourtListener
District1st Cir.
Docket
No. 1:26-cv-10877
- Assigned to
- Angel Kelley
- Cause
- 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act
- Nature of suit
- 899 Other Statutes: Administrative Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
- Jurisdiction
- Federal Question
- Jury demand
- None
- Date filed
- 2026-02-17
- Last filing
- 2026-09-17
Proceedings
92 docket entries · 57 documents
Recent docket activity
From the case's dockets as the archive holds them; each docket page lists every entry.
- 2026-09-17 NOTICE by Jessica Bowron, Doug Burgum, Department of the Interior, National Park Service of Filing of the Administrative Record (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Administrative Record, # 2 Administrative Record Pt. 1, # 3 Administrative Record Pt. 2, # 4 Administrative Record Pt. 3, # 5 Administrative Record Pt. 4, # 6 Administrative Record Pt. 5, # 7 Administrative Record Pt. 6, # 8 Administrative Record Pt. 7, # 9 Administrative Record Pt. 8, # 10 Administrative Record Pt. 9, # 11 Administrative Record Pt. 10, # 12 Administrative Record Pt. 11, # 13 Administrative Record Pt. 12, # 14 Administrative Record Pt. 13, # 15 Administrative Record Pt. 14, # 16 Administrative Record Pt. 15)(Swenson, Ian) (Entered: 09/17/2026)#75
- 2026-09-15 District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Pursuant to the Courts Order on September 15, 2026 [Dkt. 73], it is hereby ORDERED that the scheduling order is revised and set as follows:REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES: Defendants to file Administrative Record by September 17, 2026Amendments to pleadings due no later than September 25, 2026Motions to supplement Administrative Record, if any, due by September 30, 2026Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment due December 11, 2026Defendants combined opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment due within 30 days of service of Plaintiffs motionPlaintiffs combined reply and opposition due within 14 days of service of Defendants consolidated cross-motion and oppositionDefendants reply due within 14 days of service of Plaintiffs consolidated reply and opposition(CEH) Modified on 9/16/2026 to correct date of deadline to File Motion for Summary Judgment. NEF Regenerated to all parties (CEH). (Entered: 09/15/2026)#74
- 2026-09-15 District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered DENYING Defendants’ request for jurisdictional discovery. On the Court’s review, the timing and breadth of Defendants’ discovery requests raise substantial concerns about abuse of the discovery process. [E.g., Dkt. 70-2 ¶ 8 (requesting “All documents and communications related to any expenditure or donation to any federal or state political candidate or committee”); ¶ 14 (requesting “All documents and communications related to President Trump, the Trump Administration, or any of the Defendants”)]. Jurisdictional discovery is not a “fishing expedition,” nor may it be used to impose undue burdens or unnecessarily delay proceedings. Cf.Ryan v. Newark Grp., Inc., 814 F. Supp. 3d 7 (D. Mass. 2025).Nevertheless, Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that this Court has jurisdiction at the summary judgment stage. To the extent necessary and appropriate, Defendants will have the opportunity to raise specific evidentiary challenges in their summary judgment briefing, including by seeking relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Any such requests under Rule 56(d) must be limited to jurisdictional facts about which Defendants have a specific, evidentiary basis for questioning their accuracy. Revised scheduling order to follow.(CEH) (Entered: 09/15/2026)#73
- 2026-09-04 Memorandum in Opposition re 70 Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Premature Jurisdictional Discovery by Jessica Bowron, Doug Burgum, Department of the Interior, National Park Service (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Swenson Declaration)(Swenson, Ian) Modified on 9/9/2026 to modify docket text (CEH). (Entered: 09/04/2026)#72
- 2026-08-28 District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. As explained at the August 19, 2026, Scheduling Conference and in the Court’s Scheduling Order issued that same date, the Court has not yet determined whether to permit discovery on standing and therefore has not set relevant deadlines. [Dkt. 67]. Put another way, discovery has not started and may not be allowed. The Court permitted Plaintiffs to submit briefing on the propriety of permitting Defendants to engage in discovery. In Plaintiffs' briefing, they attached Defendants’ discovery requests. [Dkts. 70-2; 70-3]. Consequently, the Court clarifies its prior orders to avoid wasted time and efforts to respond to the broad requests and STAYS discovery pending this Court's ruling on Defendants’ request for jurisdictional discovery. If Defendants intend to file any briefing on the propriety of jurisdictional discovery, Defendants have seven (7) days from this order to do so.(CEH) (Entered: 08/28/2026)#71
Filings on file (57 in 28 docket entries)
Browse and search the 57 court documents in the archive for this case.
Litigation
Court cases about transgender and other LGBTQ+ people · federal & state courts
Cases tracked
loading…
| Case | Court | Level | Cir. | Year | Issue / type | Outcome | Docs |
|---|
Every case in the corpus. Click a case name for its
overview; click any column to sort, again to reverse. Each case has one
main issue and may raise others (shown as "also…"); the Issue filter finds
a case by either. Issues were checked case by case in September 2026.
Level, circuit and outcome come from the coded caselaw dataset, so some
rows are blank where a case hasn't been coded yet.
Archive stats
Direct counts from the archive index — instant and exact.
Counts are FILINGS (docket entries); the
distinct-case figure is shown alongside.
Cases by issue
Every tracked case once, under its main issue, split by the coded direction of its final ruling (the same reading as "Reached a final ruling" below): favorable or adverse to the LGBTQ-rights claim, or mixed. The empty part of each bar is cases with no coded ruling at the trial, circuit or Supreme Court stage yet, which is most of them; it is not a claim that they have no outcome. Choose a bar to list its cases.
Loading…
Reached a final ruling
The coded direction at the HIGHEST stage a case reached — trial-level, circuit-court or Supreme Court only. A preliminary-injunction ruling never counts as final, and a "procedural, no direction" or "unclear" coding is excluded rather than shown as an outcome.
Loading…
Case duration
Filed to terminated, from real CourtListener docket dates, among cases where EVERY tracked docket has terminated (an open appellate docket alongside a closed district one is pending, not resolved). No stage-by-stage date exists in this corpus, so only this one span is shown; dates cover only the tracked-docket tier — see the coverage note below the numbers.
Loading…
Cases by circuit
A real geographic map, states shaded by their circuit's case count relative to the busiest circuit (linear). The Federal Circuit has no state territory of its own (its jurisdiction is subject matter, not geography) and so never paints here, but still appears in the list and the table. Select a circuit below for its final-ruling mix.
Table view (stages, durations and circuits)
Expert witnesses
A curated roster of the recurring expert witnesses in this
litigation, with every declaration, expert report, affidavit, deposition
and trial-testimony document the corpus holds for each, grouped by case.
Coverage is limited by what has been pulled: expert
material is heavily attachment-borne, so a witness who testified in ten
cases may show fewer here, and some documents are marked
in a larger filing — the testimony sits inside an appendix or
exhibit set rather than as its own entry.
Judges
The record counts how the judge voted, not
how the case came out. Dissents and concurrences are parsed from the
opinions themselves ("NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, dissenting"), so a judge who
dissented is scored against the panel's result — without that, Judge
Niemeyer read 4–3 favorable to trans claimants. Partial dissents are
shown but left out of the tally.
Votes come from separate-writing headings and from
the opinion's own joinder block ("Judge Richardson wrote a dissenting
opinion, in which Judge Wilkinson, Judge Niemeyer… joined"), so a
judge who joins a dissent without writing one still counts. Judges are
resolved to real people against the Federal Judicial Center directory
using the deciding court — there are 32 federal judges named Smith, and
two Judge Pryors on the Eleventh Circuit. 195 ambiguous name/court pairs
were dropped rather than merged, and a case with no opinion text in the
corpus keeps the panel result for want of anything better.
Small numbers are small numbers: three rulings is not a
tendency.