Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority v. Biden et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
ALASKA INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT
AUTHORITY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
and
STATE OF ALASKA,
Intervenor-Plaintiff,
v.
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official
capacity as President of the United
States, et al.,
Defendants,
and
NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE
TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, et al.,
Intervenor-Defendants.
Case No. 3:21-cv-00245-SLG
ORDER RE MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER
AND JUDGMENT AND MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT
Before the Court at Docket 76 is Plaintiffs’ and Intervenor-Plaintiff’s 1 Motion
to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment 	Order and Judgment. 	Defendants 2
1 Plaintiffs consist of Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (“AIDEA”), North Slope
Borough, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, and Kaktovik Iñupiat Corporation. Intervenor-
Plaintiff is the State of Alaska (“State”).
2 Defendants consist of the President, U.S. Department of the Interior (“DOI” or “Interior”), DOI
Case 3:21-cv-00245-SLG Document 97 Filed 02/22/24 Page 1 of 19

Case No. 3:21-cv-00245-SLG, AIDEA, et al. v. Biden, et al.
Order re Motion to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment Order and Judgment and Motion for
Relief from Final Judgment
Page 2 of 19
responded in opposition at Docket 79, and Intervenor-Defendants3 responded in
opposition at Docket 80. 	Plaintiffs and Intervenor-Plaintiff filed a reply at Docket
83. 	Also before the Court at Docket 84 is Plaintiffs’ and Intervenor-Plaintiff’s
Motion for Relief from Final Judgment. 	Defendants responded in opposition at
Docket 89, and Intervenor-Defendants responded in opposition at Docket 90.
Plaintiffs 	and 	Intervenor-Plaintiff 	filed 	a 	reply 	at 	Docket 	93. 	Plaintiffs 	and
Intervenor-Plaintiff 	are 	hereinafter 	collectively 	referred 	to 	as 	“Plaintiffs”;
Defendants and Intervenor-Defendants are hereinafter collectively referred to as
“Defendants.” 	Oral argument was not requested on either motion and was not
necessary to the Court’s determination.
BACKGROUND
The facts of this case are set forth in the Court’s order at Docket 72; the
Court assumes familiarity here and includes only the relevant facts below. 	In
December 2017, Congress authorized an oil and gas leasing program (“Program”)
Secretary Deb Haaland, DOI Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals
Management Laura Daniel-Davis, Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”), BLM Director Tracy
Stone-Manning, and BLM Alaska State Director Steven Cohn (collectively, “Federal
Defendants”). The original complaint named Thomas Heinlein, the then BLM Alaska State
Director, as a defendant. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), the current BLM Alaska State
Director, Steven Cohn, is automatically substituted for Thomas Heinlein.
3 Intervenor-Defendants consist of two groups: the Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government,
Venetie Village Council, and Arctic Village Council (“Venetie Movants”); and the Gwich’in
Steering Committee, Alaska Wilderness League, Alaska Wildlife Alliance, Canadian Parks &
Wilderness Society-Yukon, Defenders of Wildlife, Environment America, Inc., Friends of Alaska
National Wildlife Refuges, National Wildlife Federation, National Wildlife Refuge Association,
Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, and Wilderness
Watch (“Gwich’in Movants”) (collectively, “Intervenor-Defendants”). See Docket 40.
Case 3:21-cv-00245-SLG Document 97 Filed 02/22/24 Page 2 of 19

Case No. 3:21-cv-00245-SLG, AIDEA, et al. v. Biden, et al.
Order re Motion to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment Order and Judgment and Motion for
Relief from Final Judgment
Page 3 of 19
on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (“Coastal Plain” or
“ANWR”) through Section 20001 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (“Tax Act”).4
Section 20001(c)(1) requires the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior
(“DOI” or “Interior”) to conduct at least two area-wide lease sales under this
program of at least 400,000 acres each; the Secretary “shall offer” the first lease
sale not later than December 22, 2021, and the second sale not later than
December 22, 2024.5 Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”),
the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) reviewed the Program and published an
Environmental 	Impact 	Statement 	(“EIS”) 	in 	September 	2019; 	the 	Record 	of
Decision (“ROD”) was published in August 2020.6 	The first lease sale then took
place on January 6, 2021, and Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority
(“AIDEA”), one of the Plaintiffs in this action and one of three bidders, secured
leases for seven tracts of land.7
However, when President Biden took office two weeks later, he issued
Executive Order (“EO”) 13990, which directed DOI to conduct a supplemental
4 Pub. L. No. 115-97, 131 Stat. 2054 (2017) [hereinafter Tax Act].
5 See Tax Act § 20001(c)(1)(B)(ii)(I), (II).
6 Administrative Record (“AR”) 1-3135, 3138-3225. Federal Defendants filed the Administrative
Record at Docket 48, Docket 53, and Docket 56.
7 Two other bidders, Knik Arm Services, LLC, and Regenerate Alaska, Inc., each secured one
tract of land. AR 3314-18, 3347, 3689, 3695. However, these two lessees eventually entered
into agreements with BLM in which BLM cancelled and rescinded their leases and refunded
their bid and initial rental payments. AR 3782-92.
Case 3:21-cv-00245-SLG Document 97 Filed 02/22/24 Page 3 of 19

Case No. 3:21-cv-00245-SLG, AIDEA, et al. v. Biden, et al.
Order re Motion to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment Order and Judgment and Motion for
Relief from Final Judgment
Page 4 of 19
environmental review of the Program and, during the pendency of such review,
temporarily halt all activities related to the Coastal Plain oil and gas leases (the
“Moratorium”).8 	Following the President’s directive, on June 1, 2021, the Interior
Secretary issued Secretarial Order 3401 (“Secretarial Order”), which instructed
DOI and BLM officials to conduct the supplemental environmental review and
instituted a “temporary halt on all Department activities related to the Program in
the Arctic Refuge” while that supplemental review was being conducted.9 	The
temporary halt extended to “any action[s] to authorize any aspect of the Program,
including, but not limited to, any leasing, exploration, development, production, or
transportation,” and the “process[ing of] any pending or future applications for such
activities.”10 	Also on June 1, 2021, DOI issued a Suspension of Operations and
Production Letter (“SOP Letter”) to each of the lessees, notifying them it was
suspending the leases and associated operations pending the supplemental
NEPA review.11
While BLM conducted its supplemental NEPA review, AIDEA, through its
contractors, sought authorizations from DOI to begin the initial stages of oil and
gas 	exploration 	pursuant 	to 	its 	leases, 	such 	as 	conducting 	archeological
8 AR 3349-55.
9 AR 3362.
10 AR 3363.
11 AR 3364-65, 3714-17.
Case 3:21-cv-00245-SLG Document 97 Filed 02/22/24 Page 4 of 19

Case No. 3:21-cv-00245-SLG, AIDEA, et al. v. Biden, et al.
Order re Motion to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment Order and Judgment and Motion for
Relief from Final Judgment
Page 5 of 19
investigations 	and 	seismic 	exploration.12 	Citing 	the 	Moratorium, 	Federal
Defendants refused to authorize AIDEA or its contractors to proceed with any
activities relating to the leases.13 AIDEA then brought this suit in November 2021,
challenging both the President’s issuance of EO 13990 and DOI’s implementation
of the Moratorium.14 	The other Plaintiffs in this action—North Slope Borough,
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (“ASRC”), and Kaktovik Iñupiat Corporation
(“KIC”)—and Intervenor-Plaintiff State of Alaska (“State”) all asserted that the
Moratorium caused loss of revenue and employment opportunities that would have
come from development of the Coastal Plain oil and gas leases. 15
In August 2023, the Court issued an order and final judgment dismissing all
of Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.16 	The Court held that (1) “the President acted
in accordance with his powers by ordering Agency Defendants to implement a
12 AR 3370-98.
13 AR 3399-3400.
14 Docket 1.
15 See Docket 60-4 at ¶¶ 11, 14, 17 (Decl. Harry Brower Jr.) (describing loss of revenue and
employment opportunities due to Moratorium); Docket 60-3 at ¶ 10 (Decl. Rex A. Rock, Sr.)
(“The moratorium has directly resulted in the loss of employment opportunities for ASRC
shareholders. Second, the moratorium has directly denied ASRC the opportunity to increase its
revenues.”); Docket 60-2 at ¶¶ 6, 11 (Decl. Charles Lampe) (explaining that KIC was a
subcontractor for SAExploration Inc., one of AIDEA’s contractors for its Coastal Plain oil and gas
leases, and stating that the Moratorium caused loss of revenue and employment opportunities);
Docket 59-1 at ¶¶ 3-5 (Decl. Vasilios Gialopsos) (describing loss of rental and royalty revenue
and employment opportunities due to Moratorium).
16 Alaska Indus. Dev. & Exp. Auth. v. Biden, __ F. Supp. 3d ___, Case No. 3:21-CV-00245-SLG,
2023 WL 5021555, at *29 (D. Alaska Aug. 7, 2023) [hereinafter AIDEA I]; Docket 73.
Case 3:21-cv-00245-SLG Document 97 Filed 02/22/24 Page 5 of 19

Case No. 3:21-cv-00245-SLG, AIDEA, et al. v. Biden, et al.
Order re Motion to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment Order and Judgment and Motion for
Relief from Final Judgment
Page 6 of 19
temporary moratorium while DOI undertook to correct ‘alleged legal deficiencies’
in 	its 	environmental 	analysis”; 	and 	(2) 	the 	Moratorium 	did 	not 	violate 	the
Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).17 	In its ruling, the Court noted that the
Moratorium only temporarily prevented AIDEA from developing its leases, and that
its leases had not been “cancelled, rescinded, nullified, or otherwise undone.” 18
On September 5, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Alter or Amend
Summary Judgment Order and Judgment, requesting that the Court “invalidate the
. . . moratorium to the extent it blocks Plaintiffs from conducting preliminary steps
such as archeological surveys that do not impact the environment,” and that it
“direct the Federal Defendants to carry out actions necessary to implement the oil
and gas leases held by Plaintiff AIDEA at a pace proportional to the urgency
expressed by Congress in directing that the Federal Defendants issue oil and gas
leases by December[] 2021.”19 	One day later, on September 6, 2023, DOI sent
AIDEA a letter stating that it was cancelling AIDEA’s Coastal Plain leases because
DOI had “determined that the leases were improperly issued due to pre-leasing
legal defects.”20 	On the same day, BLM released its Draft Supplemental EIS
17 AIDEA I, 2023 WL 5021555, at *16.
18 Id. at *25, 27 (noting that “the issues of whether Agency Defendants have the authority to
cancel any leases and under what circumstances are not before this Court”).
19 Docket 76 at 7, 11.
20 Docket 79-1 at 1. DOI added that AIDEA was “entitled to a refund of lease payments
[comprised of lease sale bonus bids and first year rentals] totaling $12,801,425,” but that it was
“not entitled to interest on that amount.” Docket 79-1 at 7.
Case 3:21-cv-00245-SLG Document 97 Filed 02/22/24 Page 6 of 19

Case No. 3:21-cv-00245-SLG, AIDEA, et al. v. Biden, et al.
Order re Motion to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment Order and Judgment and Motion for
Relief from Final Judgment
Page 7 of 19
(“SEIS”) 	for 	the 	Coastal 	Plain 	oil 	and 	gas 	leasing 	program,21 	and 	Federal
Defendants stated in a related case that they anticipate the Final SEIS to be issued
in the first quarter of 2024, with the ROD issued in the second quarter of 2024.22
Plaintiffs then asserted that the lease cancellation made moot their previous
motion to amend the summary judgment order, and they filed a Motion for Relief
from Final Judgment, asserting that the lease cancellation also made moot all of
their claims in this action.23 	“In the absence of any leasehold interest,” Plaintiffs
maintain that they “lack the ability to pursue development on the Coastal Plain”
and that their “claims in this case, and any potential claims on appeal, have been
rendered moot.”24 	Plaintiffs seek vacatur of the Court’s judgment dismissing
Plaintiffs’ claims.25 In response, Defendants assert that the Court should deny the
motion because the case is not moot. 26
In addition, Plaintiffs filed another suit in October 2023 in the United States
21 The Draft SEIS and related documents can be found at https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-
ui/project/2015144/570. See also Notice of Availability of the Draft Coastal Plain Oil and Gas
Leasing Program Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, 88 Fed. Reg. 62104-01
(Sept. 8, 2023).
22 See Defendants’ Status Report on Issuance of Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement at 2, Gwich’in Steering Comm. v. Haaland, Case No. 3:20-cv-00204-SLG (D. Alaska
Sept. 6, 2023), ECF No. 98.
23 Docket 83 at 3 (“Federal Defendants are correct that lease cancellation does overtake the
present Motion.”); Docket 84 at 2.
24 Docket 84 at 3.
25 Docket 84 at 3-4.
26 Docket 89 at 2; Docket 90 at 3.
Case 3:21-cv-00245-SLG Document 97 Filed 02/22/24 Page 7 of 19

Case No. 3:21-cv-00245-SLG, AIDEA, et al. v. Biden, et al.
Order re Motion to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment Order and Judgment and Motion for
Relief from Final Judgment
Page 8 of 19
District Court for the District of Columbia regarding the lease cancellation, wherein
they 	requested 	“[a] 	declaratory 	judgment 	invalidating 	DOI’s 	cancellation 	of
AIDEA’s leases” and “[a]n order directing, on a preliminary and final basis, that
Defendants proceed with leasing, exploration, and development of the ANWR
Coastal Plain as prescribed in the Tax Act, § 20001.”27 For the reasons discussed
below, the Court finds that this case is not moot, and it denies Plaintiffs’ motions.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Court first addresses Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Final Judgment
and then addresses Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment Order
and Judgment.
I. 	Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)
Plaintiffs 	seek 	relief 	from 	judgment 	pursuant 	to 	Rule 	60(b)(5) 	or,
alternatively, 60(b)(6).28 Rule 60(b)(5) authorizes relief from a judgment when “the
judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier
judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no
longer equitable.” Rule 60(b)(6) authorizes relief from a final judgment or order for
“any other reason that justifies relief.” 	The moving party “bears the burden of
proving the existence of a justification for Rule 60(b) relief.” 29
27 Amended Complaint at 31, Alaska Indus. Dev. & Exp. Auth. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, Case
No. 1:23-cv-03126-JMC (D.D.C. Jan. 16, 2024), ECF No. 11.
28 Docket 84 at 3-4.
29 Cassidy v. Tenorio, 856 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted); see also Atchison,
Case 3:21-cv-00245-SLG Document 97 Filed 02/22/24 Page 8 of 19

Case No. 3:21-cv-00245-SLG, AIDEA, et al. v. Biden, et al.
Order re Motion to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment Order and Judgment and Motion for
Relief from Final Judgment
Page 9 of 19
II. 	Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
Pursuant to Rule 59(e), a party may move to alter or amend a judgment no
later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment. 	“[T]he district court enjoys
considerable discretion in granting or denying the motion,” but “amending a
judgment after its entry remains ‘an extraordinary remedy which should be used
sparingly.’”30 	“In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule
59(e) motion may be granted,” though a court “is not limited merely to these four
situations”:
(1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact
upon which the judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to
present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if
such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the
amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law.31
“A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for
the 	first 	time 	when 	they 	could 	reasonably 	have 	been 	raised 	earlier 	in 	the
litigation.”32
Toreka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Barrett, 246 F.2d 846, 849 (9th Cir. 1957) (“[T]here still exists a
definite burden on the moving party to prove the existence of the fraud, or other misconduct, or
other cause for relief.”).
30 Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting McDowell v.
Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) (per curiam)).
31 Id. (citations omitted).
32 Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
Case 3:21-cv-00245-SLG Document 97 Filed 02/22/24 Page 9 of 19

Case No. 3:21-cv-00245-SLG, AIDEA, et al. v. Biden, et al.
Order re Motion to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment Order and Judgment and Motion for
Relief from Final Judgment
Page 10 of 19
DISCUSSION
I. 	Motion for Relief from Final Judgment
In their Rule 60(b) motion, Plaintiffs contend that their seven claims—“five
of which challenged the Coastal Plain Moratorium generally (Counts I, II, IV, VI,
and VII) and two of which challenged actions taken by DOI/BLM specific to
AIDEA’s leases (Counts III and V)”—have been rendered moot by the lease
cancellation.33 	Plaintiffs assert that, but for the lease cancellation, they “would
have appealed from the Court’s final order.”34 However, Plaintiffs maintain that
[e]ven if the Ninth Circuit were to reverse the summary judgment
decision, the reinstatement of AIDEA’s leases would not be the result,
nor 	would 	AIDEA 	or 	its 	contractors 	be 	permitted 	to 	begin
archaeological or seismic activities on the leased lands, or further oil
and gas development activities, as it no longer holds any leasehold
interest to such lands. 35
Plaintiffs further contend that the relief they sought in this case—lifting the
Moratorium—would not “allow Plaintiffs to engage in ground-disturbing lease
implementation activities,” because “AIDEA and its contractors have no right to
develop the Coastal Plain without leases.” 36 Citing United States v. Munsingwear,
Inc., Plaintiffs assert that the mootness of their claims requires vacatur under Rule
33 Docket 84 at 4; see also Docket 34 at ¶¶ 119-55 (2d Am. Compl.).
34 Docket 84 at 3.
35 Docket 84 at 4-5.
36 Docket 84 at 5.
Case 3:21-cv-00245-SLG Document 97 Filed 02/22/24 Page 10 of 19

Case No. 3:21-cv-00245-SLG, AIDEA, et al. v. Biden, et al.
Order re Motion to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment Order and Judgment and Motion for
Relief from Final Judgment
Page 11 of 19
60(b)(5), which allows for relief when applying the judgment prospectively “is no
longer equitable.”37 In Munsingwear, the United States asserted that Munsingwear
had violated a price fixing regulation for a certain commodity. 38 	However, the
commodity became decontrolled while the case was on appeal, rendering the case
moot.39 	The Supreme Court held that “[t]he established practice of the Court in
dealing with a civil case from a court in the federal system which has become moot
. . . is to reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand with a direction to
dismiss.”40 	Plaintiffs also assert that vacatur is warranted pursuant to Rule
60(b)(6), which authorizes relief for “any other reason that justifies relief,” because
the lease cancellation “was an abrupt final decision by the agency” which “occurred
without providing AIDEA or the other Plaintiffs with an opportunity to defend
against the cancellation.” 41
Defendants disagree that the case is moot. 	Defendants stress that the
challenged Executive Branch actions in this case—that is, the Moratorium on all
permitting of any oil and gas activities on the Coastal Plain—remain in effect.42
37 See Docket 84 at 7-9 (citing United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950)); Docket
93 at 2-5.
38 Munsingwear, 340 U.S. at 37.
39 Id.
40 Id. at 39.
41 See Docket 84 at 9-13.
42 Docket 90 at 3.
Case 3:21-cv-00245-SLG Document 97 Filed 02/22/24 Page 11 of 19

Case No. 3:21-cv-00245-SLG, AIDEA, et al. v. Biden, et al.
Order re Motion to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment Order and Judgment and Motion for
Relief from Final Judgment
Page 12 of 19
Defendants contend that “only by singularly focusing on AIDEA’s leases” do
Plaintiffs claim that the case is moot, but that Plaintiffs other than AIDEA have
“their own interests in the broader Program” that were not mooted by cancellation
of AIDEA’s leases.43 	Defendants point out that KIC, ASRC, and the North Slope
Borough have economic and employment interests in the “implementation of the
overall Program,” which is currently on hold due to the Moratorium.44 	And
Defendants assert that because AIDEA is seeking the same form of relief in its suit
in the District of Columbia—an order requiring development of the Coastal Plain,
which is, in effect, the same relief as lifting the Moratorium sought here—AIDEA’s
actions belie its claims that the case is moot.45 Thus, because this case challenged
the Moratorium, Defendants argue, Plaintiffs “have not shown that Defendants’
lease cancellation decision makes it ‘impossible for a court to grant any effectual
relief whatever.’”46 	Lastly, Defendants assert that “Rule 60(b) offers nothing to
save [Plaintiffs’] Motion” because the lease cancellation is not an extraordinary
circumstance.47 	Defendants contend that Plaintiffs were on notice that the
43 Docket 89 at 4-5.
44 Docket 89 at 4-5. See also Plaintiffs’ declarations supra note 15.
45 Docket 89 at 7-8.
46 Docket 89 at 3-4 (emphasis in original) (quoting Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Loc. 1000,
567 U.S. 298, 307 (2012)). See also Docket 90 at 5 (noting that both EO 13990 and the
Secretarial Order enforcing the Moratorium, “both of which were focal points of this litigation,”
are still in place and still prohibit “any oil and gas activities on the Coastal Plain until the agency
adopts a revised oil and gas program”).
47 Docket 89 at 6; see also Docket 90 at 11.
Case 3:21-cv-00245-SLG Document 97 Filed 02/22/24 Page 12 of 19

Case No. 3:21-cv-00245-SLG, AIDEA, et al. v. Biden, et al.
Order re Motion to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment Order and Judgment and Motion for
Relief from Final Judgment
Page 13 of 19
supplemental NEPA review would “determine whether the leases should be
affirmed, voided, or subject to additional mitigation measures,” and Plaintiffs do not
show that they were entitled to defend against the cancellation.48
“The mootness doctrine ‘requires that an actual, ongoing controversy exist
at all stages of federal court proceedings.’” 49 “[T]he central question . . . is whether
changes in the circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of litigation have
forestalled any occasion for meaningful relief.”50 “A case becomes moot only when
it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing
party.”51
The Court finds that this case is not moot, because it would be possible for
a court to grant some effectual relief to Plaintiffs in this case. 	Indeed, it appears
that Plaintiffs are seeking from the D.C. district court much the same relief that this
Court previously denied them—that is, an order directing the federal government
to 	proceed 	not 	only 	with 	leasing 	at 	ANWR, 	but 	also 	directing 	the 	federal
government to proceed with “exploration” and “development” at ANWR, which is
48 Docket 89 at 6.
49 Leigh v. Salazar, 677 F.3d 892, 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653
F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011)); see also Arizonans for Off. English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67
(1997) (“[A]n actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the
complaint is filed.” (quoting Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975))).
50 Timbisha Shoshone Tribe v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 824 F.3d 807, 812 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation
omitted).
51 Native Vill. of Nuiqsut v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 9 F.4th 1201, 1208 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting
Knox, 567 U.S. at 307).
Case 3:21-cv-00245-SLG Document 97 Filed 02/22/24 Page 13 of 19

Case No. 3:21-cv-00245-SLG, AIDEA, et al. v. Biden, et al.
Order re Motion to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment Order and Judgment and Motion for
Relief from Final Judgment
Page 14 of 19
effectively seeking an order that would lift the Moratorium.52 Stated differently, if a
court were to grant Plaintiffs the remedy of lifting the Moratorium, activities needed
to proceed with exploration and development could continue or commence; this
relief is effectual for Intervenor-Plaintiff State of Alaska because it would both
increase economic activity and employment in the State and reduce the delay in
the State’s collection of lease rental payments and royalty revenue.53 	And, if
Plaintiffs were to prevail in the D.C. district court on their claim that the lease
cancellation is invalid—or new leases are issued when the statutorily mandated
second lease sale is held later this year—then Plaintiffs’ interest in the legality of
the Moratorium, which this Court has now resolved, is once again directly relevant.
And unlike in Munsingwear, where the commodity was decontrolled such that the
challenged regulation no longer had any applicability to that commodity, which then
made that case moot, the Moratorium here has not been invalidated or rescinded
by the agency with respect to development activities at ANWR. 54
52 Compare Amended Complaint at 31, Alaska Indus. Dev. & Exp. Auth., Case No. 1:23-cv-
03126-JMC, ECF No. 11 (seeking “[a]n order directing, on a preliminary and final basis, that
Defendants proceed with leasing, exploration, and development of the ANWR Coastal Plain as
prescribed in the Tax Act, § 20001”), with Docket 34 at 41 (2d Am. Compl.) (seeking “[a]n order
compelling Defendants to proceed with leasing and development as prescribed by Congress in
ANILCA and the 2017 Tax Act”).
53 See Docket 59-1 at ¶¶ 2-4; Docket 22 at ¶ 32 (State’s Compl. in Intervention) (“Under the Tax
Act and other applicable law, the State earns revenues from sales, bonuses, royalties, and
rentals associated with Coastal Plain oil and gas leasing.”).
54 See Munsingwear, 340 U.S. at 37.
Case 3:21-cv-00245-SLG Document 97 Filed 02/22/24 Page 14 of 19

Case No. 3:21-cv-00245-SLG, AIDEA, et al. v. Biden, et al.
Order re Motion to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment Order and Judgment and Motion for
Relief from Final Judgment
Page 15 of 19
Further, while KIC, as one of AIDEA’s subcontractors, had an interest
intertwined with AIDEA being able to develop its leases,55 KIC has also advanced
an interest separate from AIDEA. KIC has asserted that “[b]eyond the harm to KIC
as a result of BLM’s suspension of AIDEA’s leases, the moratorium prevents KIC
from performing its own Coastal Plain seismic operations,” which then “precludes
KIC from obtaining valuable data regarding potential oil and gas reserves on its
own lands.”56 	If the Moratorium were lifted, then KIC would no longer be legally
precluded 	from 	performing 	seismic 	operations 	for 	its 	own 	purposes. 	This
constitutes some relief that a court could grant.
Finally, the Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ argument that vacatur of the
Court’s prior order and judgment is appropriate pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) due to
the 	lease 	cancellation, 	which 	Plaintiffs 	characterize 	as 	an 	“extraordinary
circumstance.”57 	Rather, Plaintiffs were on notice that “the additional NEPA
analysis [was] to determine whether the leases should be affirmed, voided, or
subject to additional mitigation measures.”58 Thus, that AIDEA’s leases would later
55 See Docket 93 at 11 & n.32.
56 Docket 60-2 at ¶ 13 (Decl. Charles Lampe) (explaining that, “[a]s a result of the moratorium,
the BLM and FWS sent a letter to KIC in August 2021 indicating that they had halted processing
KIC’s application to conduct seismic operations on the Coastal Plain and the accompanying
[Incidental Harassment Authorization] application”).
57 See Docket 84 at 9-13; Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Hewitt, 68 F.4th 461, 468 (9th Cir. 2023)
(“Relief under Rule 60(b)(6)—which is ordinarily addressed to the wide discretion of the district
court—is available only in extraordinary circumstances.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
58 AR 3405.
Case 3:21-cv-00245-SLG Document 97 Filed 02/22/24 Page 15 of 19

Case No. 3:21-cv-00245-SLG, AIDEA, et al. v. Biden, et al.
Order re Motion to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment Order and Judgment and Motion for
Relief from Final Judgment
Page 16 of 19
be cancelled should not have been totally unexpected. Moreover, while Plaintiffs
claim that they “would have appealed from the Court’s final order” but for the lease
cancellation, the Court notes that there was no obstacle to Plaintiffs appealing from
that judgment to the Ninth Circuit.59 	Accordingly, no relief is justified pursuant to
Rule 60(b)(6).
In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that this case is not moot because it
is not “impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing
party,” such that vacatur of the Court’s judgment is not warranted.60
II. 	Motion to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment Order and Judgment
In their Rule 59(e) motion filed prior to the lease cancellation, Plaintiffs
request that the Court amend its prior order at Docket 72 and judgment at Docket
73 so as to allow for lease implementation actions that do not impact the
environment, such as archeological and other surveys.61 In addition, Plaintiffs ask
the Court to amend its order to “recognize that the various follow-up matters
ancillary to the issuance of the leases by the December[] 2021 statutory deadline
must be addressed by the Federal Defendants with an urgency and timeliness
proportional to the statutory deadline for the issuance of the leases.”62 	However,
59 See Docket 84 at 3.
60 See Native Vill. of Nuiqsut, 9 F.4th at 1208 (quoting Knox, 567 U.S. at 307).
61 Docket 76 at 2.
62 Docket 76 at 11 (citing Tax Act § 20001(c)(2) (“The Secretary shall issue any rights-of-way or
easements across the Coastal Plain for the exploration, development, production, or
Case 3:21-cv-00245-SLG Document 97 Filed 02/22/24 Page 16 of 19

Case No. 3:21-cv-00245-SLG, AIDEA, et al. v. Biden, et al.
Order re Motion to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment Order and Judgment and Motion for
Relief from Final Judgment
Page 17 of 19
once the lease cancellation occurred, Federal Defendants noted in their response
that Plaintiffs “could not undertake lease implementation actions regardless of
whether they prevail on their Motion, because the Department of the Interior
cancelled the corresponding leases in a Decision dated September 6, 2023.”63 In
their reply, Plaintiffs acknowledge that the lease cancellation “overt[ook] the
present Motion” in that regard and that they would instead be filing the above Rule
60(b) motion.64 Plaintiffs also request that, should the Court find the case not moot,
the Court grant the motion to amend the judgment. 65
Plaintiffs’ first request seeking amendment to the Court’s order pertaining
to archeological surveys and other lease implementation actions is now moot given
that AIDEA’s leases have been cancelled. 	However, Plaintiffs’ second request
regarding timelines for “follow-up matters ancillary to the issuance of the leases”
from the December 2021 sale is not moot, because this request directly implicates
the validity of the Moratorium, which this Court has resolved. 66 	While Plaintiffs
make this second request pursuant to Rule 59(e), they fail to identify under which
of the four basic grounds they seek relief, and the Court finds that Plaintiffs have
transportation necessary to carry out this section.”)).
63 Docket 79 at 4 n.2.
64 Docket 83 at 3.
65 Docket 83 at 10.
66 See Docket 76 at 11 (citing Tax Act § 20001(c)(2)).
Case 3:21-cv-00245-SLG Document 97 Filed 02/22/24 Page 17 of 19

Case No. 3:21-cv-00245-SLG, AIDEA, et al. v. Biden, et al.
Order re Motion to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment Order and Judgment and Motion for
Relief from Final Judgment
Page 18 of 19
not shown that any of the four bases apply.67 Although Plaintiffs may disagree with
the Court’s discussion of case law, Plaintiffs have not shown that there was a
manifest error of law or fact.68 	They have not presented newly discovered or
previously unavailable evidence. 	Nor do they claim that a manifest injustice has
occurred or that there has been any intervening change in controlling law.69
Accordingly, the Court finds that there is no basis to alter its judgment regarding
timelines for follow-up matters ancillary to the December 2021 lease sale. 	Given
the “considerable discretion” the Court has in granting or denying a Rule 59(e)
motion, the Court denies this motion.70
67 See Allstate Ins. Co., 634 F.3d at 1111 (citations omitted) (holding that, while not limited to
these four grounds, a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted “(1) if such motion is necessary to
correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if such motion is
necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is
necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an intervening
change in controlling law”).
68 See Docket 83 at 7-8.
69 See Allstate Ins. Co., 634 F.3d at 1111 (citations omitted).
70 Id. (citation omitted).
Case 3:21-cv-00245-SLG Document 97 Filed 02/22/24 Page 18 of 19

Case No. 3:21-cv-00245-SLG, AIDEA, et al. v. Biden, et al.
Order re Motion to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment Order and Judgment and Motion for
Relief from Final Judgment
Page 19 of 19
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ and Intervenor-
Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment Order and Judgment at
Docket 76 and Plaintiffs’ and Intervenor-Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Final
Judgment at Docket 84 are each DENIED.
DATED this 22nd day of February, 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:21-cv-00245-SLG Document 97 Filed 02/22/24 Page 19 of 19