ELR Citation: 55 ELR 20058
No(s). 2:24-cv-02281-WLH-RAO (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2025) (Hsu, J.)

A district court granted summary judgment for an environmental group in a challenge to FWS' 2023 12-month finding that Joshua trees were not warranted for listing under the ESA for the "foreseeable future." The group argued FWS violated the ESA because it failed to use best available science, its definition of "foreseeable future" was arbitrary, and its decision that the trees were not threatened throughout a significant portion of their range was arbitrary. The court found FWS' "foreseeable future" definition was not established by an explanation rationally connected to the data, that the Service did not use the best available science regarding the threat of climate change nor did it provide a rational explanation as to why climate change alone might not cause the trees to become threatened or endangered, and that it should have considered climate change's effect on habitat suitability in relation to young trees in its decision regarding the significant portion of the trees' range. It granted summary judgment for the group and denied FWS' cross-motion.