Alaska Wilderness League v. Jewell, 99 F. Supp. 3d 112

Plaintiffs (Alaska Wilderness League and others) sued under the Administrative Procedure Act challenging a Fish and Wildlife Service regulation authorizing incidental, nonlethal "take" of small numbers of Pacific walruses by oil-and-gas exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea and adjacent Alaska coast (2013 regulation, effective June 11, 2013–June 11, 2018).
The regulation covers ~90,000 square miles including parts of the Outer Continental Shelf, state waters, and 25 miles of coastal land near Wainwright and Barrow; Letters of Authorization with mitigation/monitoring plans are required for each activity.
Plaintiffs allege the Service acted arbitrarily and that its negligible-impact determination was unlawful; suit filed in D.D.C. on November 10, 2014, about 17 months after the final rule.
Defendants (federal agencies) moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer venue to the District of Alaska; the government argued the rule was developed in Alaska and the controversy is local to Alaska.
The court found venue proper in Alaska, concluded public- and private-interest factors favored transfer (local interest in resolving Alaskan wildlife/land issues, decisionmaking occurred in Anchorage, plaintiffs’ ties to D.C. attenuated), granted the transfer, and also granted intervention as of right to the Alaska Oil and Gas Association.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether transferee forum (D. Alaska) is a district where action "might have been brought" under §1404(a)/§1391(e)	D.C. is proper and plaintiffs’ forum choice should be respected	Venue also proper in Alaska because a substantial part of events/decisionmaking occurred there	Held: Alaska is a proper forum; plaintiffs could have filed there
Whether public-interest factors favor transfer (familiarity, congestion, local interest)	Case raises national issues (Arctic warming, federal species) and D.C. forum appropriate	Local interest in Alaska predominates; courts equally competent; docket congestion neutral	Held: Public-interest factors (especially local interest) favor transfer
Whether private-interest factors favor transfer (plaintiff forum choice, defendants’ choice, where claim arose, party convenience)	Plaintiffs’ D.C. choice deserves deference; many plaintiffs have D.C. offices	Plaintiffs’ ties to D.C. are attenuated; decisionmaking occurred in Alaska; many parties/counsel in Alaska	Held: Private-interest factors favor transfer; little deference to plaintiffs’ forum choice
Whether Alaska Oil & Gas Association may intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)	Not opposed by plaintiffs or government; Association argues its members would be injured by relief	N/A (no opposition)	Held: Intervention granted; Association has Article III standing and meets Rule 24(a) factors

Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (transfer statute requires action could have been brought in transferee district)
Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (district court’s individualized, case-by-case transfer discretion)
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (local interest in deciding local controversies)
W. Watersheds Project v. Pool, 942 F. Supp. 2d 93 (local interest and transfer analysis in environmental cases)
Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. EPA, 675 F. Supp. 2d 173 (in APA cases, focus on where decisionmaking occurred)
Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of Am., 404 U.S. 528 (inadequacy of governmental representation for intervention analysis)
Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728 (Rule 24(a) intervention-as-of-right elements)
Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (organizational standing test)