The Fifth Circuit affirmed, 2-1, a lower court ruling in favor of fishermen's challenge to NMFS regulations regarding offshore aquaculture in federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The fishermen argued that the regulations were invalid because they fell outside the agency's authority to regulate fish...
A district court denied environmental groups' motion to preliminarily enjoin a commercial logging and road construction project in the Idaho Panhandle National Forests. The groups argued that the Forest Service violated the ESA by failing to request a species list from FWS and failing to prepare a b...
A district court vacated the Trump Administration's rescission of the Obama Administration's Waste Prevention Rule, which was enacted to reduce methane waste from oil and gas operations on public and tribal lands. California, New Mexico, and environmental groups argued the rescission violated the AP...
A district court granted in part summary judgment for nonprofit groups in a suit concerning a logging project in the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest. One group argued the project violated the Roadless Rule because the Forest Service was surreptitiously planning to construct new roads in an in...
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and remanded in part a district court order remanding to FWS several issues concerning its 2017 rule removing ESA protections for the Greater Yellowstone grizzly bear population. The district court held that FWS failed to adequately consider the impact of delisting...
The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service raises important questions about the scope of the Endangered Species Act’s (ESA’s) protections for critical habitat. Foremost among them is a question one might think was long settled: what is “habitat”? In a short ruling, the Weyerhaeuser Court opined that “critical habitat” must first be “habitat,” but it did not attempt to define exactly what habitat is or how much deference the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should get on what is both a biological and policy question.
A district court denied a motion to preliminarily enjoin grizzly bear killings in connection with a 2019 biological opinion and incidental take statement issued by FWS that allow for their lethal removal in Bridger-Teton National Forest as a result of conflict with livestock. Conservation groups arg...
A district court vacated an incidental take permit issued by FWS for a transmission line project on a historic section of the Oregon and California Trail in Nebraska. Companies and conservation groups argued that FWS' decision to issue the permit, which allowed for the incidental taking of American ...