NRDC asks court to let X2 action go forward
Author: Brandon Middleton
Yesterday, NRDC made three significant filings relating to Judge Wanger's decision last week to enjoin the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from fully implementing its fall X2 action. First, NRDC appealed the decision and injunction. Second, it requested that Judge Wanger issue a "stay of the Court's order enjoining Action 4 [X2] pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of its appeal of the Court's decision, or at least until October 15th, during which time no party will suffer any adverse impacts from full implementation of Action 4." Third, NRDC requested Judge Wanger to hold an expedited hearing on its request for a stay of the injunction of X2. NRDC has asked that the court hear the stay request tomorrow.
The parties that originally sought the injunction–the water contractor plaintiffs and the California Department of Water Resources–oppose this latter request, and they will surely oppose the underlying request for a stay as well. No word yet from the federal government. I will post any relevant filings as they become available.
Update: The court has given the plaintiffs and DWR until Friday Thursday at 10AM to file any oppositions to NRDC's request for a stay.
Update 2 (9/7/11 5:44PM Pacific): After the court issued its Thursday 10AM deadline discussed above, all the parties (except the federal government) submitted a stipulation proposing that oppositions to NRDC's request for a stay be filed by 5PM tomorrow (Thursday) and that "the parties agree that the motion for stay shall be submitted and resolved on the papers without oral argument."
Shortly after this stipulation was filed, the court informed the parties as follows: "In light of the recently-filed stipulation, the parties are informed that the Court wishes to hear oral argument on the motion to stay and will endeavor to set a hearing on 9/9/11. The parties are requested to email the courtroom deputy . . . as soon as possible with all mutually available time slots on that day."
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›