State of Alaska Dep't of Fish and Game v. Federal Subsistence Board

There is an exception to the mootness doctrine and that exception is met when (1) the duration of the challenged action is too short to allow full litigation before it ceases or expires, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the plaintiffs will be subjected to the challenged action again. Karuk Tribe of Cal. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 681 F.3d 1006, 1018 (9th Cir. 2012).

Plaintiff appealed a judgment dismissing their claims as moot. Plaintiff acknowledged that its claims were moot, but argued that they may still be reviewed because they are capable of repetition. Plaintiff argued that Defendant violated Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) by opening emergency hunting seasons at Kake Village and temporarily closing Unit 13 to caribou and moose hunting. Defendant argued that there was no reasonable likelihood of repetition because the regulations were put in place in response to COVID-19. There is an exception to the mootness doctrine and that exception is met when “(1) the duration of the challenged action is too short to allow full litigation before it ceases or expires, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the plaintiffs will be subjected to the challenged action again.” Karuk Tribe of Cal. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 681 F.3d 1006, 1018 (9th Cir. 2012). The Court concluded in regard to the Kake hunt that there was a question that requires resolution of statutory interpretation and it did meet the mootness exception. The Court concluded that the partial closing of Unit 13 was moot because the second prong of the mootness exception was not met. Remanded the Kake hunt claim to the district court. Vacate the district court's decision in part as the Unit 13 claim and remand to dismiss it as moot.