National Parks Conservation Association v. Department of the Interior

Court
D. Mass.
Docket number
1:26-cv-10877
Filed
Last filing
Assigned judge
Angel Kelley
Nature of suit
899 Other Statutes: Administrative Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause
05:551 Administrative Procedure Act
Jurisdiction
Federal Question
Jury demand
None
Case
National Parks Conservation Association v. Department of the Interior
Source
Docket on CourtListener(opens another site)

The 57 court documents filed in this docket, as listed for its case.

Docket entries

The entries the archive holds for this docket. For the full docket, use the link above.

Clear
Docket entries
No.DateDescriptionDocument
52Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to June 25, 2026 to File Answer by Jessica Bowron, Doug Burgum, Department of the Interior, National Park Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Philpott, Romney) (Entered: 06/18/2026)Open(opens another site)
53District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING 52 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to June 25, 2026 to File Answer (CEH) (Entered: 06/18/2026)Open(opens another site)
54STATUS REPORT by Jessica Bowron, Doug Burgum, Department of the Interior, National Park Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Administrative Stay)(Swenson, Ian) (Entered: 06/24/2026)Open(opens another site)
55ANSWER to 28 Amended Complaint, by Jessica Bowron, Doug Burgum, Department of the Interior, National Park Service.(Philpott, Romney) (Entered: 06/25/2026)Open(opens another site)
56ORDER of USCA as to 43 Notice of Appeal, filed by Jessica Bowron, Department of the Interior, Doug Burgum, National Park Service (CEH) (Entered: 07/02/2026)Open(opens another site)
57District Judge Angel Kelley: ORDER entered. The parties are directed to consult and submit an agreed-upon schedule outlining: (1) the time frame for Defendants production of the certified administrative record, (2) any disputes regarding the administrative record such as supplementing the record or propounding discovery, and (3) the filing of dispositive motions, no later than seven (7) days before the Scheduling Conference. The parties may follow the attached sample scheduling order, to the extent applicable. If the parties are unable to agree on a joint proposal, then separate proposed orders should be submitted. If the Court finds parties' proposed deadlines reasonable or requires only minor adjustments, it may enter a scheduling order in lieu of holding the scheduling conference. Otherwise, Scheduling Conference set for 8/18/2026 10:30 AM in Remote Proceeding : Boston before District Judge Angel Kelley. (CEH) (Entered: 07/10/2026)Open(opens another site)
58ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing. Scheduling Conference set for 8/18/2026 10:30 AM in Remote Proceeding : Boston before District Judge Angel Kelley. (CEH) (Entered: 07/10/2026)Open(opens another site)
59MOTION to Stay All Deadlines by Jessica Bowron, Doug Burgum, Department of the Interior, National Park Service. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Stay All Deadlines, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Swenson, Ian) Modified on 7/23/2026 to Strike Memorandum and file in own entry (CEH). (Entered: 07/22/2026)Open(opens another site)
60MEMORANDUM in Support re 59 MOTION to Stay All Deadlines filed by Jessica Bowron, Doug Burgum, Department of the Interior, National Park Service. (CEH) (Entered: 07/23/2026)Open(opens another site)
61Opposition re 59 MOTION to Stay All Deadlines filed by American Association for State and Local History, Association of National Park Rangers, Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, National Parks Conservation Association, Society for Experiential Graphic Design, Union of Concerned Scientists. (Menschel, Brooke) (Entered: 08/05/2026)Open(opens another site)
62District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay All Deadlines pending the First Circuit’s review of the Court’s June 12, 2026, preliminary injunction order. [Dkt. 59]. Plaintiffs oppose the Motion. [Dkt. 61]. For the following reasons, Defendants’ 59 Motion to Stay is DENIED.Ordinarily, “[a]n appeal from the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction or prevent it from taking other steps in the litigation while the appeal is pending.” Contour Design, Inc. v. Chance Mold Steel Co., 649 F.3d 31, 34 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting 11A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2962, at 438-39 (2d ed. 1995)). District courts have inherent discretionary authority to stay pending litigation “when the efficacious management of court dockets reasonably requires such intervention.” Marquis v. F.D.I.C., 965 F.2d 1148, 1154 (1st Cir. 1992) (citing, inter alia, Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936)). That said, “stays cannot be cavalierly dispensed: there must be good cause for their issuance; they must be reasonable in duration; and the court must ensure that competing equities are weighed and balanced.” Id. at 1155. The movant “bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997).Defendants contend that there is good cause to stay proceedings while their appeal is pending. They argue that a stay “would conserve the parties’ resources and judicial resources” because the two proceedings present “overlapping” issues, including concerns relevant to irreparable harm, standing, and the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims.Weighing the competing interests in this case, the Court finds that the harm to Plaintiffs in staying the proceedings outweighs any harm to Defendants from denying a stay. The First Circuit has already stayed this Court’s preliminary injunction order, reducing any harm to Defendants from the relief previously ordered. At the same time, Defendants may implement the Secretary’s Order pending appeal, and Plaintiffs therefore continue to suffer meaningful harm from its implementation—even if the First Circuit ultimately determines that such harm does not rise to the level of irreparable harm necessary for a preliminary injunction. The only harm Defendants articulate is the burden of litigating this case. But merely “being required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute a ‘clear case of hardship or inequity.’” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Ross, 419 F. Supp. 3d 16, 21 (D.D.C. 2019) (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). Moreover, the litigation remains at an early stage. The only pending obligation is for counsel to submit a proposed schedule for preparing the administrative record, extra-record discovery, if necessary, and summary judgment briefing. There is no imminent trial, final judgment, or other particularly burdensome procedural step in the immediate future. The Court thus declines to exercise its discretion to stay the proceedings at this time.Defendants’ invocation of Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 599 U.S. 736 (2023), does not alter this conclusion, as the Supreme Court’s holding in that case “reaches only arbitration appeals under § 16(a)” of the Federal Arbitration Act. Id. at 761 (Jackson, J., dissenting). That context is inapplicable here.Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Stay All Deadlines is DENIED. (CEH) (Entered: 08/06/2026)Open(opens another site)
63Proposed Document(s) submitted by American Association for State and Local History, Association of National Park Rangers, Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, National Parks Conservation Association, Society for Experiential Graphic Design, Union of Concerned Scientists. Document received: Proposed Scheduling Order. (Menschel, Brooke) (Entered: 08/11/2026)Open(opens another site)
64Recommendations for Scheduling Order . (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Swenson, Ian) (Entered: 08/11/2026)Open(opens another site)
65NOTICE of Objection by American Association for State and Local History, Association of National Park Rangers, Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, National Parks Conservation Association, Society for Experiential Graphic Design, Union of Concerned Scientists re 63 Proposed Document(s) submitted, 64 Recommendations for Scheduling Order, 57 Order, (Menschel, Brooke) Modified on 8/13/2026 to modify docket text (CEH). (Entered: 08/12/2026)Open(opens another site)
66Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before District Judge Angel Kelley: Scheduling Conference held on 8/18/2026. The Court heard the parties' proposed scheduling order deadlines. Plaintiffs shall submit briefing on jurisdictional discovery issue no later than 8/26/2026. Further order regarding scheduling order deadlines to issue at a later date. (Court Reporter: Linda Walsh at [email address removed].)(Attorneys present: Menschel, Bressler, Torcello, Moraga, Samburg, Swenson) (MAL) (Entered: 08/18/2026)Open(opens another site)
67District Judge Angel Kelley: ORDER entered. Having reviewed and considered the parties' Proposed Scheduling Orders [Dkts. 63; 64], it is hereby ORDERED that the proposed deadlines be ADOPTED IN PART and set as follows: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, 2026Deadlines regarding fact discovery, if any, and dispositive motions to be determined following this Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' forthcoming briefing on jurisdictional discovery, as discussed with the parties during the August 18, 2026, Status Conference. [See Dkt. 66].(MAL) (Entered: 08/19/2026)Open(opens another site)
68Transcript of Scheduling Conference held on August 18, 2026, before Judge Angel Kelley. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Linda Walsh at [email address removed]. Redaction Request due 9/11/2026. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/21/2026. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/19/2026. (DRK) (Entered: 08/24/2026)Open(opens another site)
69NOTICE is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in the above-captioned matter. Counsel are referred to the Court's Transcript Redaction Policy, available on the court website at https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/transcripts.htm (DRK) (Entered: 08/24/2026)Open(opens another site)
70Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Premature Jurisdictional Discovery by American Association for State and Local History, Association of National Park Rangers, Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, National Parks Conservation Association, Society for Experiential Graphic Design, Union of Concerned Scientists to 66 Scheduling Conference,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Menschel Decl.), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Defendants' First Requests for Production), # 3 Exhibit 3 (Defendants' First Interrogatories), # 4 Exhibit 4 (Amica Hearing Transcript))(Menschel, Brooke) Modified on 9/9/2026 to modify docket text (CEH). (Entered: 08/26/2026)Open(opens another site)
71District 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)Open(opens another site)
72Memorandum 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)Open(opens another site)
73District 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)Open(opens another site)
74District 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)Open(opens another site)
75NOTICE 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)Open(opens another site)
No description
No description
No description
No description
No description
No description
No description
No description
No description
No description
No description
No description
No description
No description
No description
No description
No description
No description