Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-13-05150/USCOURTS-caDC-13-05150-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 18, 2014 Decided November 7, 2014

No. 13-5147

STATE OF ALASKA,

APPELLANT

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL.,

APPELLEES

SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL, ET AL.,

INTERVENOR-APPELLEES

Consolidated with 13-5150, 13-5151

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:11-cv-01122)

Dario Borghesan, Assistant Attorney General, Alaska 

Department of Law, argued the cause for appellant. With him 

on the briefs were Thomas E. Lenhart, Assistant Attorney 

General, Julie A. Weis, Mark C. Rutzick, and Steven W. Silver.

USCA Case #13-5150 Document #1521241 Filed: 11/07/2014 Page 1 of 4
2

John M. Schultz was on the brief for amici curiae 

Southeast Alaska Power Agency, et al. in support of 

appellant. 

John L. Smeltzer, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, 

argued the cause for federal appellees. With him on the brief 

were Robert G. Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney General,

and David C. Shilton, Attorney. 

Nathaniel S.W. Lawrence argued the cause for 

intervenor-appellees Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, 

et al. With him on the brief were Thomas S. Waldo and Eric 

P. Jorgensen.

Before: ROGERS and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges, and 

WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge 

KAVANAUGH.

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge: The United States Forest 

Service is an agency within the Department of Agriculture. 

The Forest Service manages the Nation’s forests. In doing so, 

the Forest Service balances use of forest resources against 

conservation of the forests. 

In January 2001, the Forest Service adopted the Roadless 

Rule. That rule prohibited road construction, road 

reconstruction, and timber harvesting on millions of acres of 

national forest lands, including vast swaths of national forest 

land in Alaska. See 36 C.F.R. §§ 294.10-294.14 (2001); 66 

Fed. Reg. 3244, 3244-45 (Jan. 12, 2001); 68 Fed. Reg. 

75,136, 75,136-39 (Dec. 30, 2003). 

USCA Case #13-5150 Document #1521241 Filed: 11/07/2014 Page 2 of 4
3

In 2005, the Forest Service repealed the Roadless Rule.

See 70 Fed. Reg. 25,654, 25,654 (May 13, 2005). But then in 

2006, the District Court for the Northern District of California

ordered reinstatement of the rule. See California ex rel. 

Lockyer v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 459 F. Supp. 2d 

874, 916 (N.D. Cal. 2006). 

In 2011, the State of Alaska filed this lawsuit challenging

the Roadless Rule. A six-year statute of limitations governs 

Alaska’s suit. The statute of limitations runs from the date 

that “the right of action first accrues.” 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) 

(“every civil action commenced against the United States 

shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years 

after the right of action first accrues”). 

The Forest Service argues that Alaska’s suit is out of time

because, according to the Forest Service, Alaska’s right of 

action accrued in 2001 when the Roadless Rule was issued. 

The fundamental problem with the Forest Service’s argument 

is that the Forest Service repealed the Roadless Rule in 2005. 

The Forest Service’s 2005 repeal of the Roadless Rule

extinguished the right of action that had accrued in 2001. 

 

It is true that the Roadless Rule, after being repealed by 

the Forest Service in 2005, was reinstated in 2006 as a result 

of an order by the District Court for the Northern District of 

California. For purposes of Section 2401(a), however, a new 

right of action necessarily accrued upon the rule’s 

reinstatement in 2006. In essence, when the District Court for 

the Northern District of California issued its 2006 order, a 

new rule identical to an old repealed rule was issued. The 

Forest Service concedes that a new right of action would have 

accrued in 2006 if the agency acting on its own had issued the 

new rule. See Oral Arg. Rec. at 17:45-18:12. But the Forest 

Service says that this case is different because the rule was 

USCA Case #13-5150 Document #1521241 Filed: 11/07/2014 Page 3 of 4
4

reinstated in 2006 as a result of a court order. In our 

judgment, however, it does not matter for these purposes

whether the 2006 rule was issued by the agency acting on its 

own or as a result of a court order. Either way, when the rule

was reinstated in 2006 after its repeal in 2005, a new right of 

action accrued. Cf. Ohio v. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 838 F.2d 1325, 1328 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (“the period 

for seeking judicial review may be made to run anew when 

the agency in question by some new promulgation creates the 

opportunity for renewed comment and objection”). To be 

sure, under a statute allowing suit only if brought within a 

specified period “after the right of action first accrues,” it may 

seem anomalous that a legal challenge to a regulation may be 

filed considerably after the initial expiration of that period. 

But the same thing occurs under our “reopener” doctrine, as 

exemplified by Ohio. Under that doctrine, the reopening is 

seen as giving rise to a “new right of action” even though the 

regulation challenged is no different. Sendra Corp. v. 

Magaw, 111 F.3d 162, 167 (D.C. Cir. 1997). 

Under Section 2401(a), Alaska had six years from the 

time of the rule’s reinstatement in 2006 to file a lawsuit 

challenging the rule. Alaska filed suit in 2011. Alaska’s suit 

is therefore timely under Section 2401(a). 

This case has an unusual procedural background, and our 

holding is accordingly narrow. We reverse the judgment of 

the District Court dismissing Alaska’s complaint as untimely, 

and we remand to the District Court for consideration of

Alaska’s challenges to the Roadless Rule.

So ordered.

USCA Case #13-5150 Document #1521241 Filed: 11/07/2014 Page 4 of 4