`
`
`
`No. 23A35
`
`In The
`Supreme Court of the United States
`_______________
`
`Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC,
`
`Applicant,
`
`v.
`
`The Wilderness Society, et al.,
`
`Respondents.
`
`_______________
`
`On Emergency Application to Vacate the Stays Entered by the
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
`in Nos. 23-1384, 23-1592, & 23-1594
`_______________
`
`OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION TO VACATE THE STAY
`ENTERED IN NOS. 23-1592 & 23-1594
`_______________
`
`
`Kimberley Hunter
`Spencer Scheidt
`SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL
` LAW CENTER
`601 West Rosemary Street
`Suite 220
`Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
`
`
`Gregory Buppert
` Counsel of Record
`Spencer Gall
`SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL
` LAW CENTER
`120 Garrett Street
`Suite 400
`Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
`Telephone: (434) 977-4090
`Email: gbuppert@selcva.org
`
`
`
`Counsel for Respondent The Wilderness Society
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`RULE 29.6 STATEMENT
`
`Respondent The Wilderness Society has no parent corporation, and no publicly
`
`held company has any ownership interest in The Wilderness Society.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`RULE 29.6 STATEMENT .............................................................................................. i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................... iii
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT ................................................................................................................. 2
`
`A. Factual Background ...................................................................................... 2
`
`B. Procedural Background ................................................................................. 5
`
`REASONS TO DENY THE APPLICATION .............................................................. 10
`
`I. MVP TAKES THE COURT’S REVIEW FOR GRANTED. ................................ 11
`
`II. THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT ERR, MUCH LESS
`DEMONSTRABLY ERR, WHEN GRANTING THE STAY. .............................. 13
`
`A. The Fourth Circuit Has Jurisdiction to Consider Arguments In
`Pending Cases About Section 324’s Constitutionality. .............................. 13
`
`B. Section 324 Violates the Separation of Powers. ......................................... 19
`
`1. Section 324(c)(1) and Section 324(f) compel results under old law. .... 20
`
`2. Section 324(e)(1) manipulates jurisdiction as a means to an end. ...... 25
`
`C. The Stay Was Comfortably Within the Fourth Circuit’s Discretion. ........ 31
`
`III. MVP FACES NO IRREPARABLE HARM FROM THE STAY
`AFFECTING THE JEFFERSON NATIONAL FOREST. .................................. 34
`
`IV. MVP IS NOT ENTITLED TO A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR
`CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT. .............................................................. 36
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell,
`480 U.S. 531 (1987) .................................................................................... 31, 32, 33
`
`Appalachian Voices v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior,
`25 F.4th 259 (4th Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................... 3
`
`Appalachian Voices v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior,
`No. 20-2159 (4th Cir. Nov. 18, 2020) ..................................................................... 13
`
`Armstrong v. United States,
`80 U.S. 154 (1871) .................................................................................................. 29
`
`Axon Enter., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm’n,
`143 S. Ct. 890 (2023) .............................................................................................. 15
`
`Backer v. United States,
`7 Ct. Cl. 551 (1871) ................................................................................................. 29
`
`Bank Markazi v. Peterson,
`578 U.S. 212 (2016) ................................................... 1, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29
`
`Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland,
`346 U.S. 379 (1953) ................................................................................................ 36
`
`Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys. v. Dimension Fin. Corp.,
`474 U.S. 361 (1986) ................................................................................................ 18
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ................................................................................................ 17
`
`Bell v. Maryland,
`378 U.S. 226 (1964) ................................................................................................ 16
`
`Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C.,
`542 U.S. 367 (2004) .......................................................................................... 36, 38
`
`Coleman v. Paccar, Inc.,
`424 U.S. 1301 (1976) .................................................................................. 11, 12, 30
`
`Conkright v. Frommert,
`556 U.S. 1401 (2009) .............................................................................................. 35
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Doe v. Gonzales,
`546 U.S. 1301 (2005) .............................................................................................. 11
`
`Does 1–3 v. Mills,
`142 S. Ct. 17 (2021) ................................................................................................ 11
`
`Ex parte Fahey,
`332 U.S. 258 (1947) ................................................................................................ 36
`
`Garcia-Mir v. Smith,
`469 U.S. 1311 (1985) .............................................................................................. 11
`
`Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Found.,
`484 U.S. 49 (1987) .................................................................................................. 16
`
`Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Bros. & Co.,
`240 U.S. 251 (1916) ................................................................................................ 38
`
`Holtzman v. Schlesinger,
`414 U.S. 1304 (1973) .............................................................................................. 10
`
`Jama v. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t,
`543 U.S. 335 (2005) ................................................................................................ 16
`
`League of Women Voters of U.S. v. Newby,
`838 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................... 32
`
`Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Grp.,
`140 S. Ct. 1589 (2020) ............................................................................................ 15
`
`Lynch v. United States,
`292 U.S. 571 (1934) ................................................................................................ 28
`
`Ex parte McCardle,
`74 U.S. 506 (1868) ............................................................................................ 29, 30
`
`Morissette v. United States,
`342 U.S. 246 (1952) .................................................................................... 15, 17, 18
`
`N. Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.,
`458 U.S. 50 (1982) .................................................................................................. 28
`
`Nichols v. United States,
`511 U.S. 738 (1994) ................................................................................................ 28
`
`Nken v. Holder,
`556 U.S. 418 (2009) .......................................................................................... 11, 31
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Pargoud v. United States,
`80 U.S. 156 (1871) .................................................................................................. 29
`
`Patchak v. Zinke,
`138 S. Ct. 897 (2018) ..................................................... 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
`
`Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott,
`571 U.S. 1061 (2013) ........................................................................................ 11, 30
`
`Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.,
`514 U.S. 211 (1995) ................................................................................................ 20
`
`Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc’y,
`503 U.S. 429 (1992) .................................................................................... 20, 22, 23
`
`Rostker v. Goldberg,
`448 U.S. 1306 (1980) .............................................................................................. 35
`
`Sampson v. Murray,
`415 U.S. 61 (1974) .................................................................................................. 35
`
`Schweiker v. Hansen,
`450 U.S. 785 (1981) ................................................................................................ 38
`
`Sierra Club v. Fed. Energy Regul. Comm’n,
`68 F.4th 630 (D.C. Cir. 2023) ........................................................................... 3, 4, 5
`
`Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs,
`981 F.3d 251 (4th Cir. 2020) .................................................................................. 32
`
`Sierra Club v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
`897 F.3d 582 (4th Cir.), reh’g granted in part, 739 Fed. App’x 185 (4th
`Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................................. 4
`
`Sierra Club v. W. Va. Dep’t of Env’t Protection,
`64 F.4th 487 (4th Cir. 2023) ..................................................................................... 4
`
`Sierra Club v. W. Va. Dep’t of Env’t Protection,
`No. 22-1008 (4th Cir. Feb. 8, 2022) ........................................................................ 13
`
`Stern v. Marshall,
`564 U.S. 462 (2011) .................................................................................................. 1
`
`Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. United States,
`300 U.S. 297 (1937) ................................................................................................ 24
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`United States v. Clinton,
`524 U.S. 912 (1998) ................................................................................................ 38
`
`United States v. Heinszen,
`206 U.S. 370 (1907) .......................................................................................... 21, 24
`
`United States v. Klein,
`80 U.S. 128 (1871) .............................................................1, 7, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 29
`
`United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Co-op,
`532 U.S. 483 (2001) ................................................................................................ 33
`
`United States v. Ruiz,
`536 U.S. 622 (2002) ................................................................................................ 13
`
`United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians,
`448 U.S. 371 (1980) .......................................................................................... 24, 29
`
`United States v. United Mine Workers of Am.,
`330 U.S. 258 (1947) ................................................................................................ 13
`
`United States v. Winstar Corp.,
`518 U.S. 839 (1996) ................................................................................................ 30
`
`Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch,
`451 U.S. 390 (1981) ................................................................................................ 12
`
`Whalen v. Roe,
`423 U.S. 1313 (1975) .............................................................................................. 34
`
`Wild Virginia v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
`24 F.4th 915 (4th Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................... 4
`
`Yee v. City of Escondido,
`503 U.S. 519 (1992) ................................................................................................ 15
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`5 U.S.C. § 702 ............................................................................................................... 28
`
`5 U.S.C. § 704 ........................................................................................................... 5, 14
`
`15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(1) .................................................................................................... 5
`
`15 U.S.C. § 720e(a)(2) .................................................................................................. 16
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1604(i) ......................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`22 U.S.C. § 8772 ..................................................................................................... 22, 23
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................................................................... 15
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1651 ........................................................................................................... 12
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) ...................................................................................................... 34
`
`Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, Pub. L. No. 118-5, 137 Stat. 10 .......................... 1, 5
`
` Section 324 ..... 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31, 37
`
` Section 324(a) ......................................................................................................... 23
`
` Section 324(b) ................................................................................................... 33, 38
`
` Section 324(c)(1) ................................................................... 6, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27
`
` Section 324(c)(2) ....................................................................................................... 6
`
` Section 324(d) ......................................................................................................... 14
`
` Section 324(e).................................................................................................... 16, 18
`
` Section 324(e)(1) .............................................................. 6, 16, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
`
` Section 324(e)(2) ............................................................................... 6, 14, 15, 16, 17
`
` Section 324(f) .................................................................................... 6, 20, 21, 23, 24
`
`Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act, Pub. L. No. 113-179, 128 Stat.
`1913 (2014) ....................................................................................................... 27, 28
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 18(a) ...................................................................................................... 8
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 27(a)(4) .................................................................................................. 7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ................................................................................................... 15
`
`Fourth Circuit Local Rule 27(d)(1) .................................................................... 9, 10, 36
`
`Fourth Circuit Local Rule 27(d)(2) ................................................................................ 9
`
`Fourth Circuit Local Rule 27(f) ..................................................................................... 7
`
`Sup. Ct. R. 11 ......................................................................................................... 12, 38
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`Constitutional Provisions
`
`U.S. Const., art. III ................................... 1, 7, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 37
`
`Treatises
`
`Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) ................................................................ 15, 17
`
`Stephen Shapiro et al., Supreme Court Practice (11th ed. 2019) ........................ 35, 38
`
`Richard H. Fallon, Jr. et al., Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and
`the Federal System (7th ed. 2015) .......................................................................... 29
`
`Other Authorities
`
`169 Cong. Rec. S1877 (daily ed. June 1, 2023) ......................................................... 5, 6
`
`Antonin Scalia & Bryan Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal
`Texts (2012) ....................................................................................................... 17, 24
`
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Mountain Valley Pipeline and
`Equitrans Expansion Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement
`(June 2017) ......................................................................................................... 3, 23
`
`The Federalist No. 48 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) ....................... 19
`
`Laurence Hammack, Jury Trial Begins in Property Owner Compensation
`Dispute with Mountain Valley Pipeline, The Roanoke Times (Mar. 15,
`2022) .......................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC,
`161 FERC ¶ 61,043 (Oct. 13, 2017) ........................................................................ 35
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Last month, Congress enacted a statutory provision that crosses the line
`
`between legislating and judging. That provision—Section 324 of the Fiscal
`
`Responsibility Act of 2023, Pub. L. No. 118-5, § 324, 137 Stat. 10, 47–48—was tailored
`
`to mandate victory for Applicant Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (“MVP”) and the
`
`government in a narrow set of pending lawsuits over environmental permits for
`
`MVP’s namesake pipeline.
`
`Section 324 violates Article III and the separation of powers under United
`
`States v. Klein, 80 U.S. 128 (1871), and its kin. Congress cannot pick winners and
`
`losers in pending litigation by compelling findings or results without supplying new
`
`substantive law for the courts to apply. Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. 212, 225
`
`n.17 (2016). Nor can Congress manipulate jurisdiction “as a means to an end” in
`
`particular pending cases. Klein, 80 U.S. at 145. Section 324 does both.
`
`Despite what MVP and its supporters demand, nothing in Section 324 requires
`
`the Fourth Circuit to turn a blind eye and cede jurisdiction to an unconstitutional
`
`statute. The Fourth Circuit was not only empowered to police the boundary of Article
`
`III—it was obligated. “A statute may no more lawfully chip away at the authority of
`
`the Judicial Branch than it may eliminate it entirely,” and neither the Fourth Circuit
`
`nor this Court can “overlook the intrusion” of Section 324. Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S.
`
`462, 502–03 (2011).
`
`The Fourth Circuit is taking its constitutionally assigned task seriously. MVP
`
`insinuates that this case is languishing in the court of appeals with “no indication of
`
`when it might rule” on the jurisdictional questions. Appl. 11. What MVP neglects to
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`mention is that even before the company filed its application here, the Fourth Circuit
`
`scheduled expedited oral argument on those very questions for July 27, just two days
`
`from now. In the meantime, the court of appeals entered stays in the cases below to
`
`forestall irreparable harm to the petitioners while the cases proceed. Before entering
`
`the stays, the court of appeals heard from a chorus of voices, including members of
`
`Congress and federal courts scholars as amici curiae, explaining why Section 324
`
`violates the separation of powers. MVP calls the stays below extraordinary. The only
`
`extraordinary thing here is that Congress attempted to decide these cases for itself.
`
`Respondent The Wilderness Society is the only petitioner in Nos. 23-1592 and
`
`23-1594 below and respectfully submits this response opposing MVP’s application to
`
`vacate the stay entered in those consolidated cases. The court of appeals has
`
`jurisdiction over those cases and entered a stay affecting the Jefferson National
`
`Forest that was comfortably within that court’s discretion. The application should be
`
`denied.
`
`STATEMENT
`
`A.
`
`Factual Background
`
`The Mountain Valley Pipeline (“Pipeline”) is a proposed 303-mile natural gas
`
`pipeline in West Virginia and Virginia. MVP chose a controversial route from the
`
`start. The company forced hundreds of private landowners into court for eminent
`
`domain proceedings, in some cases condemning easements across properties that
`
`families have passed down for generations. See Laurence Hammack, Jury Trial
`
`Begins in Property Owner Compensation Dispute with Mountain Valley Pipeline, The
`
`Roanoke Times (Mar. 15, 2022), perma.cc/XW4M-AQ74.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Unwilling landowners are not MVP’s only problem. The terrain in this part of
`
`the country is both demanding and fragile. The Pipeline would climb up and down
`
`more than 200 miles of steep and landslide-prone mountains. See Federal Energy
`
`Regulatory Commission, Mountain Valley Pipeline and Equitrans Expansion Project:
`
`Final Environmental Impact Statement at 4-28 (June 2017), perma.cc/WJC6-QCDW
`
`(“Commission EIS”). Roughly a quarter of the route would traverse slopes
`
`approaching the steepness of a black diamond ski run, Appalachian Voices v. U.S.
`
`Dep’t of the Interior, 25 F.4th 259, 265 & n.1 (4th Cir. 2022), and some areas like
`
`Peters Mountain and Brush Mountain on the Jefferson National Forest are
`
`considerably steeper, see Commission EIS, supra, at 4-28, 4-67. The route crosses
`
`protected public land, over one thousand streams, and habitat for endangered species
`
`found nowhere else. Appalachian Voices, 25 F.4th at 265–68.
`
`To construct the Pipeline, MVP was required to obtain approval from the
`
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission”) and from several other state
`
`and federal agencies. See Sierra Club v. Fed. Energy Regul. Comm’n, 68 F.4th 630,
`
`636–37 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (describing required approvals for the Pipeline). On that list,
`
`MVP needed permission from the U.S. Forest Service (“Forest Service”) and the
`
`Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) because 3.5 miles of the Pipeline would snake
`
`through the Jefferson National Forest in the mountains of southwest Virginia. Id. at
`
`637.
`
`The Pipeline cannot be built without violating standards in the mandatory
`
`forest plan for the Jefferson National Forest that protect natural resources and the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`land’s productivity. Wild Virginia v. U.S. Forest Serv., 24 F.4th 915, 923 (4th Cir.
`
`2022). One problem is that the construction techniques MVP intends to use are
`
`incompatible with the forest plan. ECF No. 25-3 at 66.1 Another problem is that MVP
`
`has been dogged by an inability to effectively control erosion and sedimentation and
`
`protect water quality during construction. See Sierra Club, 68 F.4th at 650–51
`
`(describing violation history); Sierra Club v. W. Va. Dep’t of Env’t Protection, 64 F.4th
`
`487, 502 (4th Cir. 2023) (same). Every project on a national forest must be consistent
`
`with that forest’s governing plan, so the Pipeline could not proceed if the standards
`
`remained in place. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i).
`
`Instead of rejecting the Pipeline, the Forest Service decided to amend the forest
`
`plan to accommodate MVP. The agency’s regulations provide this option, but impose
`
`a mandatory framework with procedural and substantive requirements that the
`
`agency has struggled to follow. The court of appeals vacated the Forest Service and
`
`BLM approvals for the Pipeline in Sierra Club v. U.S. Forest Service, 897 F.3d 582,
`
`606 (4th Cir.), reh’g granted in part, 739 Fed. App’x 185 (4th Cir. 2018), and again in
`
`Wild Virginia, 24 F.4th at 932, based in part on these errors. Immediately after Sierra
`
`Club, the Commission ordered MVP to stop construction on the national forest. See
`
`App’x 52–53. That has been the status quo for almost five years.
`
`In mid-May of this year, the Forest Service and BLM issued their latest
`
`approvals for the Pipeline. On May 15, the Forest Service issued a record of decision,
`
`choosing once more to amend the mandatory plan, exempt MVP from the relevant
`
`
`1 Citations to filings below refer to No. 23-1592 unless otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`standards, and issue a letter of concurrence that BLM should grant MVP a right-of-
`
`way and temporary-use permit for construction. ECF No. 25-5. Two days later, BLM
`
`released its own record of decision electing to grant MVP the right-of-way and permit.
`
`ECF No. 25-7.
`
`B.
`
`Procedural Background
`
`The Wilderness Society filed the petitions for review in Nos. 23-1592 and 23-
`
`1594 below on June 1—just ten business days after BLM issued its record of decision.
`
`The petitions present claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 704,
`
`alleging that the latest Forest Service and BLM approvals for the Pipeline violate
`
`several environmental statutes. ECF No. 16; ECF No. 15 (No. 23-1594). Under the
`
`Natural Gas Act, these claims must be litigated in the Fourth Circuit. 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 717r(d)(1).
`
`No stay was necessary at the time these petitions were filed for two reasons.
`
`First, MVP remained subject to the Commission order following Sierra Club that
`
`prohibited construction on the national forest. ECF No. 25-1 at 4. Second, MVP could
`
`not start construction on the national forest, even with the Commission’s blessing,
`
`until BLM issued the company a final approval called a notice to proceed. Id.
`
`On June 3, President Biden signed into law the Fiscal Responsibility Act
`
`(“Act”). The Act was a must-pass bill to raise the nation’s debt ceiling and avoid
`
`default. But the Act also carried a rider, Section 324, intended to help MVP escape a
`
`“judicial hellhole,” because the Pipeline “would be finished today if it weren’t for the
`
`rulings by the Fourth Circuit.” 169 Cong. Rec. S1877, 1890 (daily ed. June 1, 2023)
`
`(statement of Sen. Capito).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Section 324 includes several provisions at issue here:
`
`• Section 324(c)(1) provides that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of
`
`law . . . Congress hereby ratifies and approves” all authorizations necessary for
`
`the construction and initial operation of the Pipeline.
`
`• Section 324(c)(2) provides that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law,”
`
`Congress directs applicable agencies “to continue to maintain” authorizations
`
`for the Pipeline.
`
`• Section 324(e)(1) provides that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law,
`
`no court shall have jurisdiction to review” any approval necessary for the
`
`construction and initial operation of the Pipeline, “including [in] any lawsuit
`
`pending in a court as of the date of enactment.”
`
`• Section 324(e)(2) provides that the D.C. Circuit “shall have original and
`
`exclusive jurisdiction over any claim alleging the invalidity of” Section 324 “or
`
`that an action is beyond the scope of authority” Section 324 confers.
`
`• Section 324(f) provides that Section 324 “supersedes any other provision of
`
`law” that is “inconsistent with the issuance of any authorization” for the
`
`Pipeline.
`
`Section 324 was aimed at four specific approvals, including the three challenged in
`
`Nos. 23-1384, 23-1592, and 23-1594 below. See 169 Cong. Rec. at S1877 (statement
`
`of Sen. Capito) (targeting approvals “from the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land
`
`Management, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, along with approval from the
`
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`When the Act became law, MVP filed motions to dismiss or, in the alternative,
`
`for summary denial under Fourth Circuit Local Rule 27(f) based on Section 324. ECF
`
`No. 12-1; ECF No. 11-1 (No. 23-1594). Soon after, the government indicated that it
`
`would also move to dismiss based on Section 324. See ECF No. 17 at 3. On The
`
`Wilderness Society’s unopposed motion, the court of appeals consolidated Nos. 23-
`
`1592 and 23-1594 and allowed The Wilderness Society to file a single response to
`
`MVP and the government by June 26. ECF Nos. 19, 21.
`
`The Wilderness Society timely opposed the motions. ECF No. 22. The
`
`Wilderness Society explained that Section 324 violates Article III and the separation
`
`of powers under Klein and this Court’s ensuing precedent. The Wilderness Society
`
`further explained that the Fourth Circuit was both empowered and obligated to
`
`consider the constitutional defects in Section 324. The court of appeals also heard
`
`from members of Congress and federal courts scholars as amici curiae supporting The
`
`Wilderness Society. ECF Nos. 27, 28. As the scholars explained, Section 324
`
`“obliterat[es] the line between lawmaking and adjudicating.” ECF No. 28 at 11.
`
`MVP and the government had seven days to reply. Fed. R. App. P. 27(a)(4).
`
`Instead, they filed notices (not motions) granting themselves an extra week and
`
`informing the court of appeals that they intended to reply by July 10. ECF Nos. 23,
`
`24.
`
`Meanwhile, MVP’s construction plans were picking up steam. On June 28, the
`
`Commission issued an order authorizing MVP to resume all construction activities,
`
`including construction on the Jefferson National Forest. App’x 51. At that point, the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`only remaining hurdle to construction on the national forest was that MVP needed
`
`BLM to issue a notice to proceed. On July 3, just two business days after the
`
`Commission issued the construction order, The Wilderness Society filed a motion for
`
`a stay pending review under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 18(a). ECF
`
`No. 25-1. The motion “focused on the Forest Service’s role” in approving the Pipeline,
`
`but sought a stay of both the Forest Service and BLM approvals. Id. at 2. The
`
`Wilderness Society did not request a temporary administrative stay in that motion
`
`because it was not clear precisely when BLM would issue the notice to proceed or
`
`what construction schedule it might include, but The Wilderness Society informed
`
`the court of appeals that such a request could become necessary when the notice to
`
`proceed issued. Id. at 5 & n.3.
`
`On July 5, the court of appeals ordered MVP and the government to respond
`
`to the stay motion by July 10. ECF No. 26. That same day, counsel for the government
`
`informed counsel for The Wilderness Society that BLM had issued MVP the notice to
`
`proceed sometime on July 3. ECF No. 32 at 4–5. The notice to proceed revealed that
`
`MVP intended to start construction on the national forest that day—July 5—and that
`
`high-impact construction would begin the next week. See id.
`
`On July 6, The Wilderness Society moved for a temporary administrative stay.
`
`Id. at 1. The Wilderness Society explained that an administrative stay was necessary
`
`because high-impact construction was slated to commence on the national forest
`
`before the underlying stay motion would be fully briefed. Id. at 1–2. The Wilderness
`
`Society also voluntarily committed to an expedited timeline for its anticipated reply
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`in support of its underlying stay motion. Id. at 6. And to expedite the case further,
`
`The Wilderness Society informed the court of appeals under Fourth Circuit Local
`
`Rule 27(d)(2) that the court should not await The Wilderness Society’s reply before
`
`acting on the stay motion given the imminent irreparable harm at stake. Id. The court
`
`of appeals ordered the government and MVP to respond to the motion for a temporary
`
`administrative stay by the next day, a Friday. ECF No. 33.
`
`MVP filed its response just before the close of business and the government
`
`filed after hours. They argued that Section 324 is constitutional, that The Wilderness
`
`Society faced no irreparable harm, that the public interest disfavored a stay because
`
`Section 324 prioritized the Pipeline, and that the equities weighed against The
`
`Wilderness Society. ECF Nos. 35, 36. In its response, MVP confirmed that it “already
`
`ha[d] mobilized construction resources and ha[d] resumed work in the Jefferson
`
`National Forest.” ECF No. 35 at 9. In view of the exigent circumstances, The
`
`Wilderness Society replied that night. ECF No. 37.
`
`The next business day was Monday, July 10. This was the court-imposed
`
`deadline for MVP and the government to respond to The Wilderness Society’s stay
`
`motion, and their self-extended deadline to reply in support of their motions to
`
`dismiss. MVP filed its reply that afternoon. ECF No. 41. At 5:00 PM, the court of
`
`appeals issued an order granting The Wilderness Society’s stay motion and
`
`terminating the motion for a temporary administrative stay. App’x 1–2. Fourth
`
`Circuit Local Rule 27(d)(1) anticipates that the court may act on a motion without a
`
`response, and allows any party adversely affected by such an action to apply