ELR Citation: 56 ELR 20065
No(s). 24-cv-06324-JSC (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2026) (Corley, J.)

A district court granted in part and denied in part environmental groups' motion for summary judgment in a challenge to FWS' 2022 biological opinion (BiOp) regarding the nationwide effects of the pesticide malathion on endangered species and their critical habitats. The groups brought six claims under the ESA and the APA. The court found they had standing to challenge the BiOp's determinations regarding species jeopardy and critical habitat, including the failure to consider recovery, the “usage” analysis, and the categorization scheme underlying those determinations, and that the jeopardy determinations were arbitrary because the “usage” analysis underlying every determination relied on arbitrary species’ range estimates and/or pesticide usage data. It further found all Category 2 critical habitat determinations and the subset of Category 1 determinations that had rationales saying there were “no relevant” physical and biological features were arbitrary because the Service’s path in making category determinations could not reasonably be discerned; but that FWS was not required to separately analyze recovery in the context of critical habitat. It granted summary judgment for the groups as to their claims that the jeopardy determinations were arbitrary because they relied on arbitrary species’ range estimates and pesticide usage data, and that Category 2 and some Category 1 critical habitat determinations were arbitrary because they relied on an arbitrary categorization scheme. It granted summary judgment for FWS with respect to the claim that the critical habitat determinations were arbitrary because they failed to separately address recovery.