Appalachian Voices v. United States Department of the Interior, 78 F.4th 71

The Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP), authorized by FERC in 2017, required multiple federal approvals; environmental groups brought successive challenges in the Fourth Circuit and elsewhere.
While several Fourth Circuit decisions had vacated some agency actions, the pipeline is largely constructed and petitioners filed new challenges in 2023 to recent Fish & Wildlife and BLM/Forest Service approvals.
On June 3, 2023 Congress enacted the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, § 324, which (a) ratified and directed maintenance of all approvals "notwithstanding any other provision of law," (b) provided that "no court shall have jurisdiction" to review the listed agency actions, and (c) vested the D.C. Circuit with "original and exclusive jurisdiction" over claims challenging § 324 itself.
After § 324’s enactment, MVP and agency respondents moved to dismiss pending petitions as beyond the Fourth Circuit’s jurisdiction; petitioners’ sole response was that § 324 is unconstitutional.
The Fourth Circuit held a jurisdictional hearing, concluded it retained authority to decide its own jurisdiction, but dismissed the petitions because (1) § 324(c) ratification mooted the challenges and (2) § 324(e) strips the Fourth Circuit of review and commits constitutional challenges to the D.C. Circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court can determine its own jurisdiction despite § 324	Court may and should decide constitutionality of § 324	Court may determine its jurisdiction but § 324 removes jurisdiction over merits	Court retained power to decide its jurisdictional competence but ultimately dismissed merits for lack of jurisdiction
Effect of § 324(c) ratification on pending challenges	§ 324 is unconstitutional and therefore cannot ratify unlawful agency actions	Ratification validly changes the law and forecloses review	Ratification is a permissible legislative change that moots challenges to the ratified approvals
Validity of § 324(e)(1) jurisdiction-stripping	§ 324(e)(1) impermissibly manipulates jurisdiction to decide outcome of particular pending litigation	Congress may withdraw jurisdiction; § 324(e)(1) applies here	Fourth Circuit is stripped of jurisdiction to review the listed approvals; constitutionality challenges fall outside its power
Proper forum for constitutional challenges to § 324	Fourth Circuit can hear the constitutional challenge	§ 324(e)(2) vests original and exclusive jurisdiction in D.C. Circuit	D.C. Circuit has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear challenges to § 324; Fourth Circuit must dismiss

United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002) (federal courts always have jurisdiction to determine their own jurisdiction)
Patchak v. Zinke, 138 S. Ct. 897 (2018) (upholding statute that stripped jurisdiction in a fractured decision; addressed limits of Congress’s power over jurisdiction)
Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. 212 (2016) (distinguishing permissible congressional change to the law from impermissible direction to courts about how pre-existing law applies)
United States v. Heinszen & Co., 206 U.S. 370 (1907) (recognizing Congress’s power to ratify agency action)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for judicial deference to agency statutory interpretations referenced in context)
Appalachian Voices v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 25 F.4th 259 (4th Cir. 2022) (Fourth Circuit’s prior vacatur of certain approvals in the MVP litigation)
Brooks v. Vassar, 462 F.3d 341 (4th Cir. 2006) (discussing lack of jurisdiction when case is moot)