ELR Citation: 56 ELR 20039
No(s). 24-cv-04651-JST (N.D. Cal. Mar 30, 2026) (Tigar, J.)

A district court granted in part and denied in part summary judgment for environmental groups in a challenge to six ESA regulatory provisions promulgated in 2019 and 2024. The groups argued the provisions violated the ESA and sought to have them vacated and prior versions restored. The court concluded that four of the six provisions violated the text of the ESA or were arbitrary and capricious and invalid. Specifically, it found that (1) the requirement that effects of a proposed action be "reasonably certain to occur" before NMFS and FWS could consider them violated the ESA's "best available data" requirement and blocked the Services from complying with their mandate to ensure agency actions are not likely to jeopardize listed species; (2) the requirement that mitigation measures be treated like any other part of a project proposal and not to "require any additional demonstration of binding plans" contradicted the text of the Act; (3) the requirement that the value of habitat be appreciably diminished "as a whole" inappropriately narrowed the scope of the statutory protection; and (4) the removal of the Services' duty to request consultation was not adequately explained. It vacated the provisions and reinstated the versions in effect before their respective changes in 2019 and 2024.