Kristi Noem v. Deb Haaland, 41 F.4th 1013

Mount Rushmore hosted annual Fourth-of-July fireworks for years; the Park Service paused the practice for safety/fire concerns, issued a one-year permit for 2020, and denied a 2021 permit.
The Park Service cited COVID-19 risks, tribal-relationship concerns, impacts on other visitors, an in-progress construction project, and ongoing water‑contamination and wildfire monitoring as reasons for denying the 2021 permit.
South Dakota sued the Park Service under the Administrative Procedure Act as-applied (arbitrary-and-capricious challenge) and brought a facial nondelegation challenge to the statutes authorizing the Park Service’s permitting.
South Dakota sought injunctive relief (an order requiring issuance of the permit) and a declaratory judgment that the denial was arbitrary and that the statute is unconstitutional for lack of an intelligible principle.
The district court denied a preliminary injunction, then converted that denial into final judgment to preserve the nondelegation claim as an appealable issue despite the passing of July 4.
The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction: the arbitrary‑and‑capricious claim was moot; the nondelegation claim failed for lack of standing (redressability).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of APA arbitrary-and-capricious claim	South Dakota: denial of 2021 permit remains justiciable as capable of repetition yet evading review and affects future permitting practice.	Park Service: the specific 2021 denial is a past event; relief ordering reconsideration would be ineffectual and advisory; future circumstances will differ.	Court: claim is moot—no live controversy; South Dakota failed to meet the capable‑of‑repetition‑yet‑evading‑review test because future records/reasons likely differ.
Standing (redressability) for facial nondelegation challenge	South Dakota: declaring the permitting statutes unconstitutional would eliminate the legal barrier and help obtain permits.	Park Service: invalidating the permitting statute would not make use of Park Service land more likely; permission would still be required and repeal could make relief harder.	Court: no redressability—declaratory relief would not likely make holding fireworks at Mount Rushmore any more likely; thus no standing.

Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (case-or-controversy and mootness principle)
POET Biorefining–Hudson, LLC v. EPA, 971 F.3d 802 (8th Cir. 2020) (ineffectual relief and mootness)
Fed. Election Comm’n v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007) (capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review doctrine)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing: injury, traceability, redressability)
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020) (separation-of-powers traceability discussion)
Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761 (2021) (distinguishing traceability and redressability in separation-of-powers challenges)
Dep’t of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019) (administrative-review focuses on contemporaneous explanation and record)
Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518 (1897) (government’s property-rights principle: permission required to use federal land)
Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (preliminary-injunction standard)