Yesterday, in a finding favoring environmentalists, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed part of a lower court ruling in Ctr for Biological Diversity, et al v. EPA.

The suit, brought by two environmental groups in 2011, contends Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials have approved numerous pesticides knowingly harmful to endangered and threatened species, such as the Elf owl and the California condor, without consulting wildlife officials as required by law. The plaintiffs maintain the EPA violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) when it registered such pesticides without consulting with National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials.

Per Bloomberg BNA, the Ninth Circuit “disagreed with the lower court’s decision that certain older pesticides were immune from lawsuits pushing for a consultation process under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.” In reaching its conclusion, the court considered thirty-one “failure-to-consult Claims for Relief” at issue and specifically noted the lower court incorrectly applied the “collateral attack doctrine,” prohibiting plaintiffs “from using a later order that implements a prior agency action as a vehicle to undo the underlying action or order.”

Stephanie Parent, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, told the Associated Press, “We’re hopeful that this ruling will lead the EPA to finally include reasonable safeguards that keep harmful chemicals out of the habitats of the nation’s most vulnerable wildlife.”

Per Bloomberg, Jay Vroom, CropLife America’s president and CEO stated, “Unfortunately, today’s decision still leaves unresolved the full conflict between the ESA and the pesticide registration law,”

The case was remanded for further proceedings.

A copy of the opinion is available here.