## Facts

- Michigan Coalition of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. (MICHRAD) represented Michigan entities that generated low-level radioactive waste.
- Nevada, Washington, and South Carolina hosted the then-only commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities (Beatty, Richland, and Barnwell), administered by state agencies led by the defendants.
- Under a federal statutory scheme governing low-level radioactive waste, MICHRAD asserted Michigan satisfied federal compliance conditions and was entitled to continued access to the sited states’ facilities through December 31, 1992.
- MICHRAD sued for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the defendants from denying Michigan generators access to those disposal sites.
- The district court granted summary judgment for MICHRAD and entered declaratory and injunctive relief barring defendants from denying access; it denied defendants’ motion to stay the judgment and permanent injunction pending appeal.
- Defendants sought a stay pending appeal in the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a); the court addressed only the stay motion, not the merits of the summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendants were entitled to a stay pending appeal of the district court’s judgment and injunction under the four-factor standard applied to Rule 8(a) stay motions.

## Decision

- The court of appeals granted the defendants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s judgment and injunction pending appeal.
- The court applied a four-factor test—likelihood of success, irreparable harm, harm to others, and the public interest—treated as related considerations to be weighed, not rigid prerequisites.
- On likelihood of success, the court found defendants made a sufficient showing that their appeal presented substantial legal questions, including jurisdictional and statutory interpretation concerns.
- On irreparable harm, the court credited the asserted difficulty of undoing the consequences of compelled acceptance and disposal of additional low-level radioactive waste, including long-term management burdens and capacity constraints.
- On harm to others, the court concluded the interim harm to MICHRAD’s members was comparatively limited because they had temporary onsite storage capacity.
- On public interest, the court determined temporary onsite storage under regulatory controls did not materially worsen public safety, and that maintaining the status quo while legality was resolved served the public interest.

## Legal Principles

- A stay pending appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 8(a) is assessed by balancing: (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm to the movant absent a stay, (3) harm to others if a stay issues, and (4) the public interest.
- The four factors are interrelated and are weighed together; none is invariably dispositive.
- The strength required on any one factor may vary depending on the strength of the others; a movant may obtain a stay by showing serious merits questions coupled with strong equities on irreparable harm and public interest.
- Courts should address and weigh all four factors when ruling on a stay motion.

## Conclusion

The court granted a stay pending appeal of an injunction requiring sited states to accept low-level radioactive waste from Michigan generators, holding that Rule 8(a) stay determinations require a flexible balancing of likelihood of success, irreparable harm, harm to others, and the public interest, and concluding that the balance favored preserving the pre-injunction status quo during the appeal.


Mich. Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1991)