State of Alaska v. AGRI, 17 F.4th 1224

The Forest Service promulgated the 2001 "Roadless Rule," generally prohibiting road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands.
Alaska sued, challenging the Rule’s application to its two national forests (Tongass and Chugach); procedural history includes an earlier dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds, reversal by this court, and a remand where the district court later granted summary judgment for USDA.
After briefing on appeal, USDA initiated rulemaking at Alaska’s request and in 2020 issued a final rule exempting the Tongass from the Roadless Rule.
Alaska argued the exemption did not moot its appeal because USDA could reimpose the Rule (invoking the "voluntary cessation" doctrine) and because the Chugach remains covered by the Rule.
The D.C. Circuit held Tongass claims moot (vacating the district-court rulings as to Tongass) and dismissed the remaining Chugach-related claims for lack of standing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether USDA's 2020 Tongass exemption moots Alaska's challenge to the 2001 Roadless Rule as applied to the Tongass	Exemption is voluntary cessation; USDA could later reimpose the Rule, so case is not moot	Exemption supersedes the prior rule; the case is moot unless voluntary cessation exception applies	Tongass claims are moot; vacated district-court portions regarding Tongass
Whether the voluntary-cessation exception saves the appeal from mootness	Exemption was voluntary and planned reinstatement makes the dispute capable of repetition and evading review	Voluntary-cessation doctrine generally inapplicable to coordinate-branch actions; future rulemaking is speculative and reviewable if/when new rule issued	Voluntary-cessation doctrine does not save the appeal; speculative future rulemaking cannot keep the appeal alive
Whether Alaska has standing to challenge application of the Roadless Rule to the Chugach National Forest	Complaint alleges harm from Rule’s operation in Chugach; that suffices to maintain claims	Alaska failed to produce specific evidentiary facts at summary judgment showing injury-in-fact	Alaska failed to demonstrate injury-in-fact for the Chugach; remaining claims dismissed for lack of standing

Akiachak Native Cmty. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 827 F.3d 100 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (agency rescission/replacement of challenged regulation generally moots litigation)
Clarke v. United States, 915 F.2d 699 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (en banc) (explaining voluntary-cessation doctrine and cautioning against imputing manipulative purpose to coordinate branches)
American Bankers Ass’n v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 934 F.3d 649 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (distinguishing cases where a court order, not voluntary action, caused the agency to cease the challenged conduct)
Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Hodel, 839 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (agency withdrawal of regulation moots challenge; future reproposal is reviewable later and does not require advisory opinion)
Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. v. FERC, 962 F.2d 45 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (case becomes plainly moot when an agency order has been superseded)
City News & Novelty, Inc. v. City of Waukesha, 531 U.S. 278 (2001) (principle against allowing parties to evade review by temporarily altering behavior)
United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (vacatur principles when cases become moot on appeal)