State of Montana v. HaalandState of Montana v. Haaland
Defendants Doug Burgum, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior, the U.S. Department of Interior, the Director of the National Park Service, the National Park Service (“NPS“), Cam Sholly, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Yellowstone National Park, in Montana, (collectively “Federal Defendants“) move for a stay of the administratively consolidated cases in Montana v. Burgum, No. 1:24-cv-00180-BMM (“Montana“) and Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Hammond, No. 1:25-cv-12-BMM (“Alliance“). (Montana, Doc. 118; Alliance, Doc. 32.) Plaintiff State of Montana (“Montana“) does not oppose the stay. (Doc. 118 at 2.) Plaintiffs Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Council on Fish and Wildlife (collectively, “Alliance Plaintiffs“) oppose the motion. (Docs. 34.) The
BACKGROUND
Montana filed suit against Federal Defendants in 2024, challenging the Interagency Bison Management Plan (“IBMP“). (Montana, Doc. 1.) Montana alleges claims under the
The Court administratively consolidated the cases in 2025. (Montana, Doc. 95; Alliance, Doc. 24.) Federal Defendants lodged the administrative record in November 2025. (Montana, Doc. 105 at 3–4.) The Court issued a case management plan in February 2026. (Montana, Doc. 105; Alliance Doc. 29.) The Court amended the case management plan upon Montana‘s motion in April 2026. (Montana, Doc. 117.) The case management plan requires Alliance Plaintiffs and Montana to move
NPS issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (“SEIS“) for a Bison Management Plan at Yellowstone National Park, WY, MT, ID (“NOI“) on April 29, 2026. 91 Fed. Reg. 23112-01 (2026). The NOI reports that a supplemental review of the IBMP is warranted because “[s]easonal bison migration out of the park has become less predictable in timing and duration” and “[t]his change affects the reliability of management assumptions that informed the 2024 analysis.” 91 Fed. Reg. 23113. The NOI further indicates that the “NPS will determine whether additional analysis of any issues raised in [the Alliance and Montana lawsuits] is appropriate, and if so, will include such analysis in the SEIS.” Id.
LEGAL STANDARD
Courts possess broad discretion to grant a stay. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). A stay of civil proceedings is an “extraordinary remedy that should be granted only when justice so requires . . ..” ESG Capital Partners LP v. Stratos, 22 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1045 (C.D. Cal. 2014). Courts deciding whether to issue a stay should consider how a stay will affect the interests of the parties. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). A court must weigh the following factors: (1) the
DISCUSSION
Alliance Plaintiffs oppose a stay of proceedings. (Alliance, Doc. 34.) Alliance Plaintiffs first argue that Federal Defendants fail to show “good cause” or “compelling circumstances” to alter the case management plan. (Id. at 8.) Alliance Plaintiffs next argue that a SEIS would fail to address Alliance Plaintiffs’ claims. (Id. at 10.) Alliance Plaintiffs further argue that prudential mootness fails as a compelling reason on its own to stay proceedings. (Id. at 11.) Lastly, Alliance Plaintiffs assert that the Court may not grant Federal Defendants request for a stay without a definite deadline. (Id. at 7.) The Court addresses each argument in turn.
I. Whether Federal Defendants Demonstrate “Good Cause” or “Compelling Circumstances”
II. Whether a Stay Proves Warranted
Federal Defendants first argue that a stay would be appropriate because Alliance Plaintiffs and Defendant Intervenors will suffer no prejudice. (Doc. 119 at 5.). Federal Defendants next contend that the continued litigation of the merits of the FEIS would cause hardship because NPS plans to proceed with the supplemental NEPA process. (Id. at 6.) Federal Defendants finally argue that principles of judicial efficiency and the orderly course of justice strongly weigh in favor of staying the proceedings. (Id. at 7.)
A stay remains unwarranted in this matter in balancing the Lockyer factors. 398 F.3d at 1110. Federal Defendants have the burden to “make out a clear case of hardship or inequity” as “a fair possibility” exists that a stay would harm Alliance Plaintiffs. Id. at 1112. Federal Defendants may suffer some inequity by having to litigate the merits of the FEIS if the Court moved forward with summary judgment proceedings. Id. “But being required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute a ‘clear case of hardship or inequity.‘” Id.
A stay would fail to simplify the proof or questions of law at issue in this case. Lockyear, 398 F.3d at 1110. NPS has not withdrawn the ROD and makes no commitment to addressing Alliance Plaintiffs’ claims during the SEIS process. The NOI instead provides that “NPS will determine whether additional analysis of any issues raised . . . is appropriate.” 91 Fed. Reg. 23113. Furthermore, NPS would focus the SEIS on the timing of seasonal migration of bison outside Yellowstone Park. Id. NPS‘s focus remains independent from Alliance Plaintiffs’ claims in this matter. Lockyear makes clear that if another proceeding “is unlikely to decide, or to contribute to the decision of, the factual and legal issues before the district court,” that factor weighs against granting a stay. 398 F.3d at 1113.
Federal Defendants further fail to satisfy their burden of showing that the last Lockyer factor supports a stay. Federal Defendants argue that the Court should grant a stay in this case because the SEIS eventually would moot Alliance Plaintiffs’ challenge of the IBMP. (Alliance, Doc. 119 at 7.) “The mere possibility [of an
The Court adopts the reasoning of the District of Hawaii and denies Federal Defendants’ motion for a stay. The SEIS makes no mention of addressing Alliance Plaintiffs’ claims. 91 Fed. Reg. 23113. Federal Defendants may address Alliance Plaintiffs’ claims in the SEIS, but Federal Defendants likely could determine that addressing their concerns “proves unnecessary.” See All. for the Wild Rockies v. Marten, 200 F. Supp. 3d 1129, 1131 (D. Mont. 2016) (denying an agency‘s motion for a stay where the agency “may decide to perform new NEPA analyses . . . [but it] could find [] that new NEPA analyses proves unnecessary.“). Accordingly, a “mere possibility” exists as to whether Federal Defendants’ completion of the SEIS would moot Alliance Plaintiffs’ claims. Pizzuto, 2008 WL 5054573, at *1.
Alliance Plaintiffs further argues that a stay with an indefinite timeline invites abuse of discretion. (Alliance, Doc. 34 at 7, citing Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066–67 (9th Cir. 2007.) Federal Defendants suggest that the Court use its discretion to craft a time limit to a potential stay in which they may complete the SEIS. Federal Defendants anticipate completing the SEIS within 18 months. Federal Defendants themselves at the motion hearing characterize this completion timeframe as “ambitious.” Alliance Plaintiffs may still suffer damage if the Court granted a stay with a time limit as Alliance Plaintiffs would have no recourse if Federal Defendants failed to follow the deadline set by the Court.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Federal Defendants’ Motions to Stay (Montana, Doc. 118 & Alliance, Doc. 32) are DENIED. Montana‘s motion to amend/correct the Case Management Order (Montana, Doc. 125) is DENIED as MOOT.
DATED this 21st day of July, 2026.
Brian Morris, Chief District Judge
United States District Court