The court holds that the Endangered Species Act's (ESA's) prohibition on the "take" of endangered species is not unconstitutional as applied to purely local activities that affect a fly that exists only in California. The court first holds that the record clearly shows that wildlife in general, and ...

The court holds that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires the U.S. Forest Service to release to an environmental group management territory maps identifying Mexican spotted owl nest sites. The Forest Service may not withhold the maps under FOIA exemption 2, which permits withholding of inf...

The court holds that exemption 2 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) does not exempt the U.S. Forest Service from disclosing documents revealing the locations of northern goshawk nest sites. The government has failed to demonstrate how the nest sites related "solely," or even predominantly, "to...

The court reverses a district court opinion that the stare decisis effect of a decision by a federal district court in Washington State bars appellants' current challenge to the president's 1994 forest plan. The court holds that stare decisis does not require a district court in one circuit to follo...

The court holds that a commercial fisher's challenge to regulations establishing a limited entry program in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery is untimely under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The fisher failed to seek review within 30 days after the regulations were promulga...

The court holds that a district court erred in including as "relevant conduct" for sentencing purposes an individual's sale of 118 black bear gall bladders to an undercover agent. The court first holds that the district court erred because relevant conduct under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines must b...

The court sets aside the critical habitat designation (CHD) for the southwestern willow flycatcher because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS') adoption of a baseline approach to measure the economic impact of the flycatcher CHD was an erroneous construction of the Endangered Species Act (ESA...

The court holds that the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) does not violate the Free Exercise or Establishment Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and, therefore, affirmed an individual's conviction for possessing eagle feathers without a permit. The BGEPA prohibits the taking or possession ...

The court holds that the take provision of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as applied to landowners, does not violate the U.S. Commerce Clause. After purchasing property, the landowners sought to develop it, but were prevented from doing so because of the restrictions placed on the land under the ...

The court holds that the Endangered Species Act's (ESA's) application to private lands in order to protect an endangered species that lives entirely within one state does not violate the U.S. Commerce Clause. The court first holds that the regulated activity in question—construction of a housing d...