Background
A coalition of conservation and professional organizations — including the National Park Conservation Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Association of National Park Rangers — sued the U.S. Department of the Interior, Secretary Doug Burgum, the National Park Service, and its acting director in the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs challenged agency action affecting the National Park Service, and on June 12, 2026, the district court entered a preliminary injunction in their favor. Among its provisions, the injunction included an independent stay of a Secretarial Order under 5 U.S.C. § 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act.
The government defendants appealed and simultaneously filed an Emergency Motion in the First Circuit seeking either a full stay pending appeal or, at minimum, an immediate administrative stay of the district court’s injunction order while the appeal proceeds.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit granted a partial administrative stay, pausing paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the district court’s June 12 preliminary injunction order. The court declined at this stage to stay paragraph 1 of the order, which itself stays the Secretary’s Order pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705 — meaning that APA-based stay of the Secretarial Order remains in effect.
The court relied on Justice Barrett’s concurrence in United States v. Texas, 144 S. Ct. 797 (2024), discussing the considerations relevant to administrative stays, and indicated it intends to rule on the government’s full stay-pending-appeal motion promptly. The order is limited in scope and does not resolve the merits of the appeal.
Key Takeaways
- The First Circuit granted only a partial administrative stay — paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the district court’s injunction are paused, but the APA § 705 stay of the Secretary’s Order remains intact.
- An administrative stay is a temporary procedural tool to preserve the status quo while the court considers a full stay pending appeal; it does not reflect a ruling on the merits.
- The court signaled it will move quickly on the government’s request for a stay pending appeal, suggesting expedited handling of this matter.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the layered procedural tools available when agency action and injunctive relief collide on appeal. By leaving the § 705 APA stay undisturbed while pausing other injunction provisions, the First Circuit preserved some government flexibility without fully unwinding the district court’s protections for the plaintiffs — a calibrated middle ground that reflects careful consideration of the equities pending full briefing.
For practitioners, the case is a reminder that emergency stays of preliminary injunctions are rarely all-or-nothing: appellate courts can and do parse injunction paragraphs individually. The court’s citation to Justice Barrett’s Texas concurrence also signals continued attention to the standards governing administrative stays in the post-Texas landscape.