Case Law Index Endangered Species Act

January 1, 2000 – May 23, 2024

This index provides a comprehensive though not necessarily exhaustive compilation of reported and unreported federal and state court decisions involving the Endangered Species Act that were decided between the dates listed above.  The cases are listed in reverse chronological order. The “Text” link goes to the freely available Google Scholar text of the opinion. These listings are for educational purposes only and are not a substitute for legal counsel.

Supreme Court

United States Fish & Wildlife Serv. v. Sierra Club, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 777 (2021) (The deliberative process privilege protected the FWS’s and NMFS’s joint biological opinion from disclosure because it was pre-decisional and deliberative.) Text

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 139 S. Ct. 361 (2018) (Land is eligible for designation as critical habitat under the ESA only if it is habitat for species.) Text

National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (A regulation seeking to apply consultation and no-jeopardy mandates of the ESA only in situations in which there is discretionary federal involvement or control was reasonable interpretation entitled to deference.) Text.

Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (Ranchers and irrigation districts had standing to seek judicial review of a biological opinion proposing use of reservoir water to protect endangered species of fish.) Text

Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995) (The regulatory definition of “harm” in the ESA section defining the term “take” was reasonable.) Text

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge a regulation that required other agencies to confer with the Secretary of the Interior under the ESA only with respect to federally funded projects in the US and on the high seas.) Text

U.S. v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 (1986) (Defendant could not assert a tribal treaty right defense to the ESA charge, given that the Bald Eagle Protection Act abrogated any such right.) Text

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978) (Construction of the Tellico Dam could not continue after a finding that operation of the damn would eradicate an endangered species.) Text

First Circuit

Melone v. Coit, 100 F.4th 21 (1st Cir. 2024) (NMFS’s determination that harassing up to 20 right whales was a “small number” was not arbitrary because it applied scientific expertise to evaluate the impact of the intervenor-appellee’s activities.) Text

Oliver v. U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt. (In re Nantucket Residents), 100 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2024) (The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management did not violate the ESA after consulting with NMFS, concluding that a wind power project’s construction would not jeopardize the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale.) Text

Strahan v. SECRETARY, MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE, 519 F. Supp. 3d 65 (D. Mass. 2021) (The court denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary relief pending trial. Plaintiff contends that the court’s April 30, 2020 Order misapprehended the legal standard provided by the Endangered Species Act and Supreme Court precedent.) Text

Strahan v. Diodati, 755 F.Supp.2d 318 (D. Mass. 2010) (Officers of state agencies did not cause takings of federally protected whales.) Text

Animal Welfare Inst. v. Martin, 623 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2010) (The death of a single animal may call for an injunction in some cases, but in other cases the death of a single animal is an isolated event having only a negligible impact on the species as a whole and does not call for judicial action) Text

Maine v. Norton, 257 F.Supp.2d 357 (D. Me. 2003) (Joint distinct population segment policy of the National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish & Wildlife Service was a reasonable construction of ambiguous language in the ESA.) Text

Blue Water Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 226 F.Supp.2d 330 (D. Mass. 2002) (Agency determinations under the ESA must utilize best scientific data available not best scientific data possible.) Text

U.S. v. Town of Plymouth, Mass., 6 F.Supp.2d 81 (D. Mass. 1998) (Fish & Wildlife Service sought preliminary injunction under the ESA to prohibit town from allowing off-road vehicles.) Text

Strahan v. Coxe, 127 F.3d 155 (1st Cir. 1997) (That no death of protected northern right whales occurred did not preclude the finding that Massachusetts’ licensing of gillnet and lobster pot fishing caused a “takings” in violation of the ESA.) Text

American Bald Eagle v. Bhatti, 9 F.3d 163 (1st Cir. 1993) (Standard for establishing taking of species for purposes of the ESA require a showing of actual harm, rather than any numerical probability of harm.) Text

Second Circuit

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., No. 21-cv-5706 (LJL), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157039 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 5, 2023) (FWS’s consideration of unproven conservation efforts in its determination to not list the eastern hellbender as endangered or threatened was arbitrary and capricious.) Text

American Bird Conservancy v. Harvey, 232 F.Supp.3d 292 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (Members of wildlife conservation group had standing in action asserting violation of the Endangered Species Act.) Text

U.S. v. One Etched Ivory Tusk of African Elephant, 871 F. Supp. 2d 128 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (African elephant tusk did not fit definition of “sports-hunted trophy” or “trophy hunting.”) Text

Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Norton, 386 F.Supp.2d 553 (D. Vt. 2005) (Rule eliminating Northeastern gray wolf population area from recovery efforts violated notice and comment requirements.) Text

Fourth Circuit

Allegheny Wood Prods. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., No. 2:22-CV-07, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24428 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 12, 2024) (FWS’s determination that the plaintiff’s application for an Incidental Taking Permit was statutorily incomplete was not arbitrary or capricious.) Text

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Mar. Admin., No. 4:21-cv-00132, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57232 (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2023) (The US Department of Transportation Maritime Administration violated the ESA when it failed to conduct a Section 7 consultation on its issuance of the FY 2018 James River Project grant.) Text

Appalachian Voices v. US Department of Interior, 25 F.4th 259 (4th Cir. 2022) (A collection of environmental nonprofit organizations, challenge the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2020 Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement for the Mountain Valley Pipeline.) Text

Red Wolf Coal. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 346 F.Supp.3d 802 (E.D.N.C. 2018) (FWS’s grant of two lethal takes of red wolves was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the ESA.) Text

Sierra Club v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 899 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2018) (Take limits in incidental take statement from FWS authorizing natural gas pipeline were arbitrary and capricious.) Text

Hill v. Coggins, 867 F.3d 499 (4th Cir. 2017) (Visitors had standing to bring action against zoo operator alleging poor maintenance of bears constituted unlawful taking under the ESA.) Text

Dow AgroSciences LLC v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 707 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 2013) (Opinion that unrestricted registration of products would jeopardize the existence of protected salmonid species was arbitrary and capricious.) Text

Animal Welfare Inst. v. Beech Ridge Energy LLC, 675 F. Supp. 2d 540 (D. Md. 2009) (ESA’s citizen-suit provision allows actions alleging wholly-future violations of the statute.) Text

Gibbs v. Babbitt, 214 F.3d 483 (4th Cir. 2000) (Limiting taking of red wolves on private land valid under Commerce Clause.) Text

Fifth Circuit

Basinkeeper v. Bernhardt, No. 20-00651-BAJ-EWD, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15647 (M.D. La. Jan. 29, 2024) (FWS’s determination to delist the Louisiana black bear from the ESA was not arbitrary or capricious.) Text

Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Nat’l Found. for Rescued Animals, No. 6:22-cv-97-JDK, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99302 (E.D. Tex. June 7, 2023) (The Big Cat Act does not replace or supplant the ESA.) Text

Sierra Club v. United States DOI, 990 F.3d 898 (5th Cir. 2021) (The FWS’s biological opinion and incidental take statement, which authorized the take of one endangered cat for a construction project, were in accordance with the requirements of the ESA and its implementing regulations.)

Gen. Land Office of Tex. v. United States DOI, 947 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2020) (The FWS applied an inappropriately high standard for delisting an endangered species when it required the delisting petition to contain information that the FWS had not considered in its five year review.) Text

Optimus Steel, LLC v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 492 F. Supp. 3d 701 (E.D. Tex. 2020) (Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring an ESA claim against the Army Corps of Engineers because no ESA-protected species or critical habitats were present on the property at issue.) Text

Graham v. San Antonio Zoological Soc’y, 261 F.Supp.3d 711 (W.D. Tex. 2017) (Fact issues existed as to whether zoo’s treatment of elephant amounted to “harm” or “harassment” in violation of ESA.) Text

Aransas Project v. Shaw, 775 F.3d 641 (5th Cir. 2014) (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s actions in administering licenses to take water did not violate ESA.) Text

Schoeffler v. Kempthorne, 493 F.Supp.2d 805 (W.D. La. 2007) (Failure to timely designate critical habitat for threatened species was continuing violation.) Text

Save Our Springs Alliance v. Norton, 361 F.Supp.2d 643 (W.D. Tex. 2005) (FWS could delay issuance of its 12-month finding.) Text

Sierra Club v. Veneman, 273 F.Supp.2d 746 (E.D. Tex. 2003) (Management plan for endangered species was not arbitrary or capricious and satisfied ESA requirements.) Text

National Wildlife Federation v. Coleman, 529 F.2d 359 (5th Cir. 1976) (Conservation groups sought to enjoin construction of a highway due to the presence of a listed species.) Text

Sixth Circuit

Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Sec’y of the United States DOT, 960 F.3d 872 (6th Cir. 2020) (The administering agency did not also have to comply with the ESA before it could approve response plans for an oil pipeline because the plans complied with the requirements of the Clean Water Act.) Text

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Serv., 444 F. Supp. 3d 832 (S.D. Ohio 2020) (The U.S. Forest Service failed to take a “hard look” at the impacts of fracking on a listed endangered species before issuing fracking leases.) Text

Buckeye Forest Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 378 F.Supp.2d 835 (S.D. Ohio 2005) (USFS was not required to undertake formal ESA consultation.) Text

Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 181 F.Supp.2d 883 (E.D. Tenn. 2001) (Plaintiff was entitled to injunction requiring designation of critical habitat for certain species.) Text

Kentucky Heartwood, Inc. v. Worthington, 125 F.Supp.2d 839 (E.D. Ky. 2000) (To determine whether injunctive relief shall issue under the ESA, the only test is whether there has been a violation of the ESA.) Text

Eighth Circuit

Kuehl v. Sellner, 887 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2018) (Upholding the district court conclusion that zookeepers treatment of endangered lemurs and tigers violated the ESA.) Text

Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Harvey, 574 F.Supp.2d 934 (E.D. Ark. 2008) (FWS had sufficiently met its consultation requirements under the ESA.) Text

Missouri ex rel. Nixon v. Sec’y of Interior, 158 F.Supp.2d 984 (W.D. Mo. 2001) (Limitations period was not tolled by agencies’ failure to determine endangered species’ critical habitat.) Text

Defenders of Wildlife v. Administrator, EPA, 882 F.2d 1294 (8th Cir. 1989) (Plaintiffs could maintain a suit under the citizen suit provision of the ESA even if a successful suit would cancel a pesticide registration.) Text

Sierra Club v. Clark, 755 F.2d 608 (8th Cir. 1985) (The ESA limits the discretion of the Secretary of Interior to allow public sport hunting of threatened species.) Text

Ninth Circuit

NRDC v. Haaland, No. 21-15163, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 12409 (9th Cir. May 23, 2024) (The Bureau of Reclamation and FWS complied with their obligations under the ESA to conduct an adequate consultation over whether the renewal of government water supply contracts would likely jeopardize the existence of delta smelt.) Text

Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force v. Montana, No. 23-3754, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 9778 (9th Cir. Apr. 23, 2024) (A reasonably certain threat of imminent harm to grizzly bears existed had Montana’s wolf trapping and snaring season proceeded as planned.) Text

Alaska v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., No. 3:22-cv-00249-JMK, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49702 (D. Alaska Mar. 20, 2024) (NMFS provided a reasonable explanation for excluding FWS’s Pacific walrus analysis from its 90-day finding on delisting the Arctic ringed seal.) Text

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Little, No. 1:21-cv-00479-CWD, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49611 (D. Idaho Mar. 19, 2024) (Idaho’s laws and rules permitting recreational wolf trapping and snaring violated the ESA because they pose a reasonably certain risk of take of grizzly bears.) Text

Migrant Clinicians Network v. United States EPA, 88 F.4th 830 (9th Cir. 2023) (The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s amended pesticide registrations of streptomycin sulfate for use in combating citrus diseases failed to comply with the ESA because the EPA did not evaluate the risk that streptomycin would pose to pollinators.) Text

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, 87 F.4th 980 (9th Cir. 2023) (It was rational to conclude that the U.S. Army’s use of water from a river basin would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of northern Mexican garter snakes, given FWS’s biological opinion.)

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 67 F.4th 1027 (9th Cir. 2023) (FWS’s designation of the northern Santa Rita Mountains as occupied critical habitat for jaguar was arbitrary and capricious because it was based on irrelevant photographs and on a single sighting from a different mountain range.) Text

Yurok Tribe v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 654 F. Supp. 3d 941 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (The order prohibiting the Bureau of Reclamation from releasing water from Upper Klamath Lake was preempted by the ESA.) Text

Ctr. for Food Safety v. Regan, 56 F.4th 648 (9th Cir. 2022) (Environmental organizations, commercial beekeeper, and beekeeping organizations filed petition seeking review of EPA’s order giving unconditional approval of insecticides containing sulfoxaflor. The court held that the petition was granted in part and denied in part.) Text

Klamath Irrigation Dist. V. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 48 F.4th 934 (9th Cir. 2022) (Irrigation districts brought action against Bureau of Reclamation seeking declaratory judgement that Bureau’s operating procedures for federal irrigation project, which Bureau adopted to fulfill obligations arising under ESA and tribal treaties, violated APA and Reclamation Act.) Text

Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, 38 F.4th 34 (9th Cir. 2022) (Environmental organizations filed petitions pursuant to FIRFA for review of EPA’s interim registration review decision for glyphosate under the different act such as the ESA.) Text

FRIENDS OF GUALALA RIVER v. GUALALA REDWOOD TIMBER, LLC, No. 22-cv-00317-VC (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2022) (Plaintiff Friends of Gualala River moves to enjoin the Gualala Redwood Timber company from harvesting trees on its property, invoking the Endangered Species Act.) Text

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, No. 19-35981, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 16565 (9th Cir. June 3, 2021) (FWS did not sufficiently explain why it changed its prior decision to list the Pacific walrus as threatened or endangered under the ESA.) Text

Friends of Animals v. Haaland, No. 20-35318, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 14531 (9th Cir. May 17, 2021) (The FWS’s pre-file notice rule for petitions to list species under the ESA is inconsistent with the statutory scheme of the ESA.) Text

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, No. CV-18-00404-TUC-JGZ, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64170 (D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2021) (FWS’s withdrawal of proposed rule to list the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub distinct population segment was arbitrary and capricious.) Text

Friends of Animals v. Sheehan, No. 6:17-cv-00860-AA, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8456 (D. Or. Jan. 15, 2021) (FWS did not violate the ESA by issuing Safe Harbor Agreements and incidental take permits to private landowners as part of an experiment studying the effects of Barred Owl removal on Northern Spotted Owl recovery because it may provide informational benefit.) Text

Friends of the Clearwater v. Higgins, 847 F. App’x 394 (9th Cir. 2021) (Plaintiffs were denied a preliminary injunction to prevent timber harvest and road construction because they failed to establish that grizzly bears were likely to be irreparably harmed.) Text

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt, 982 F.3d 723 (9th Cir. 2020) (BOEM’s approval of an offshore drilling project violated the ESA because it was based on a legally inadequate biological opinion produced by FWS.) Text

Nat’l Family Farm Coal. v. United States EPA, 966 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2020) (The EPA’s findings that potential exposure to a particular pesticide would have “no effect” on listed species and habitats did not violate the ESA’s consultation procedures.)

Crow Indian Tribe v. United States, 965 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2020) (The FWS violated ESA directives by deciding to remove the Yellowstone grizzly bear population from listing protections without including a commitment to recalibration due to political pressure.) Text

California v. Trump, 963 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2020) (A state had standing to allege that a border wall project would have an adverse effect on environmental resources including direct and indirect impacts to ESA-listed species.) Text

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 441 F. Supp. 3d 843 (D. Ariz. 2020) (FWS’s consultation and biological opinion of a large-scale open-pit-mining operation violated the ESA in several ways.) Text

California v. BLM, No. 18-cv-00521-HSG, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53958 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2020) (The ESA did not require the BLM to consult with the FWS about its decision to repeal regulations on a hydraulic fracturing operation because the BLM concluded that the repeal would have no effect on ESA-protected species.) Text

Inst. for Fisheries Res. v. United States FDA, 499 F. Supp. 3d 657 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (The FDA violated the ESA by failing to sufficiently consider whether farmed, genetically engineered salmon could effect endangered wild salmon before deciding not to consult with the FWS or NMFS.)

Cal. Nat. Res. Agency v. Ross, No. 1:20-CV-00426-DAD-EPG, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83612 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2020) (Plaintiffs awarded preliminary injunction barring US Bureau of Reclamation from implementing its updated plan for the long-term operation of the Central Valley Project.) Text

Native Ecosystems Council v. Marten, No. CV 18-87-M-DLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52990 (D. Mont. Mar. 26, 2020) (The US Forest Service was required to complete a site-specific biological assessment for wolverine, a proposed listed species, even though the proposed project was not a major construction activity.) Text

Wildwest Inst. v. Kurth, 855 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2017) (The FWS’s decision to list the whitebark pine is reviewed under the Administrative Procedure Act and is upheld because it was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law.) Text

Yurok Tribe v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 231 F.Supp.3d 450 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (Plaintiffs established that listed Coho salmon faced irreparable harm as result of increased infection rates.) Text

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Norton, 236 F.Supp.3d 1198 (E.D. Cal. 2017) (Bureau of Reclamation lacked sufficient control to give rise to obligation to initiate ESA consultation.) Text

Pacificans for a Scenic Coast v. California Dept. of Transp., 204 F.Supp.3d 1075 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (Agency had to reinitiate ESA consultation when it learned of increased risk to listed species.) Text

Tenth Circuit

Rocky Mt. Wild v. Dallas, 98 F.4th 1263 (10th Cir. 2024) (The US Forest Service and the FWS did not violate the ESA by extending a permit for the incidental take of Canada lynx, and the 2018 Biological Opinion and corresponding Incidental Take Statement were not arbitrary and capricious.) Text

Defs. of Wildlife v. United States Forest Serv., 94 F.4th 1210 (10th Cir. 2024) (The US Forest Service did not act arbitrarily when it relied on FWS’s 2021 Biological Opinion regarding Canada lynx, because the opinion did not violate the ESA and appropriately addressed the impact of the Land Management Plan on the lynx population.) Text

W. Watersheds Project v. Haaland, 69 F.4th 689 (10th Cir. 2023) (FWS’s 2019 Biological Opinion was arbitrary and capricious as it failed to consider whether to limit the lethal take of female grizzly bears in a project area.) Text

N.N.M. Stockman’s Ass’n v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 30 F.4th 1210 (10^th Cir. 2022) (In this ESA action, the district court’s dismissal of the ranchers’ petition for review of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s critical habitat determination for the New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse was affirmed.) Text

PEOPLE, THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC. v. Lowe, No. CIV-21-0671-F (W.D. Okla. Feb. 25, 2022) (PETA alleges that Lowe has violated and continues to violate the ESA, and its implementing regulations, by taking protected species, within the meaning of the ESA, without a permit.) Text

Natural Resources Defense Council v. McCarthy, 993 F. 3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2021) (The Plaintiffs alleged that the BLM violated NEPA and the APA by failing to analyze the environmental consequences of its action to lift the temporary closure order that was issued to protect an endangered cacti species and open the Factory Butte area to cross-country OHV use.) Text

N.M. Farm & Livestock Bureau v. United States DOI, 952 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2020) (The FWS failed to find that occupied critical habitat was insufficient to ensure jaguar conservation before designating unoccupied critical habitat, so such designation was arbitrary and capricious.) Text

Oregon-California Trails Ass’n v. Walsh, 467 F. Supp. 3d 1007 (D. Colo. 2020) (Incidental take permit issued by the FWS was vacated because the FWS erroneously treated an indirect effect as a cumulative effect in its biological opinion.) Text

N. N.M. Stockman’s Ass’n v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 494 F. Supp. 3d 850 (D.N.M. 2020) (FWS’s decision to use the incremental effects approach to consider economic impacts associated with the designation of cattle grazing land as critical habitat for an endangered species of jumping mouse is consistent with the ESA.)

N.M. Dep’t of Game & Fish v. United States DOI, 854 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2017) (The FWS did not need to obtain permits from the State of New Mexico before releasing Mexican Gray Wolves onto federal lands in New Mexico.) Text

People for the Ethical Treatment of Prop. Owners v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 852 F.3d 990 (10th Cir. 2017) (Take of the Utah Prairie Dog is substantially related to interstate commerce to justify enforcing the ESA regulations on nonfederal lands even though the species is purely intrastate.) Text

Rocky Mountain Wild v. Walsh, 216 F.Supp.3d 1234 (D. Colo. 2016) (Decision not to list wildflowers as threatened under the ESA based on a 15-year conservation agreement was arbitrary and capricious.) Text

WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. E.P.A., 759 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2014) (EPA had no duty to consult with FWS about effect of emissions on endangered fish near power plant.) Text

Center for Native Ecosystems v. Salazar, 711 F.Supp.2d 1267 (D. Colo. 2010) (Supplementation of administrative record to include Bas and BiOps was warranted in ESA case.) Text

Center for Native Ecosystems v. Cables, 509 F.3d 1310 (10th Cir. 2007) (USFS adequately consulted with FWS on effect of grazing on listed species.) Text

Biodiversity Legal Found. v. Babbitt, 146 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 1998) (Action seeking to enforce the deadline on petition to list Columbian sharp-tailed grouse under the ESA.) Text

Eleventh Circuit

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, No. 23-CV-20495-PAS, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3885 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2024) (The National Park Service violated the ESA when it failed to consult with FWS before issuing an agreement and release to facilitate development of the Miami Wilds project area.) Text

Sierra Club v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., No. 2:20-cv-13-SPC-NPM, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195748 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2023) (FWS’s amended Biological Opinion regarding the Florida panther complied with the ESA, and The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not err in relying on the opinion to authorize an expansion of a three-mile stretch of Road 82.) Text

United States v. Turtle, 365 F. Supp. 3d 1242 (M.D. Fla. 2019) (The Seminole Indian Tribe is required to comply with the ESA’s prohibition of selling alligator eggs because it is a reasonable and necessary conservation measure.) Text

Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 354 F. Supp. 3d 1253 (N.D. Ala. 2018) (The Army Corps of Engineers sufficiently reviewed the effects of issuing permits for waste discharge into waterways and did not need to conduct additional surveys for the Flat Musk Turtle and the Black Warrior Waterdog.) Text

People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Miami Seaquarium, 879 F.3d 1142 (11th Cir. 2018) (The conditions for killer whales at defendant’s animal park did not violate the ESA.) Text

Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Dept. of Navy, 733 F.3d 1106 (11th Cir. 2013) (The ESA did not require NMFS to include an incidental take statement for a portion of its biological opinion.) Text

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. U.S., 566 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2009) (Negative impacts to designated critical habitat do not have to be permanent to be considered “adverse modification.”) Text

Florida Key Deer v. Paulison, 522 F.3d 1133 (11th Cir. 2008) (FEMA has discretion to administer the National Flood Insurance Program so far as it is bound by the ESA.) Text

Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coal. v. Kempthorne, 477 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2007) (Alabama sturgeon was correctly listed as endangered.) Text

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. U.S., 420 F.Supp.2d 1342 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (Army Corps of Engineers did not violate the ESA while implementing changes to water control plan for purpose of protecting designated critical habitat.) Text

U.S. v. Billie, 667 F.Supp. 1485 (S.D. Fla. 1987) (ESA applied to hunting activity on Seminole Indian reservation.) Text

DC Circuit

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Regan, Civil Action No. 21-119 (RDM), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26823 (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 2024) (FWS’s programmatic biological opinion violated the ESA because it lacked required species-specific analysis.) Text

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., Civil Action No. 21-791 (TJK), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176314 (D.D.C. Sep. 30, 2023) (FWS relied on a reasonable interpretation of the ESA when it listed the American Burying Beetle as “threatened.”) Text

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, No. 22-cv-3588 (DLF), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139815 (D.D.C. Aug. 11, 2023) (FWS failed to satisfy its non-discretionary duty under the ESA to develop and implement a recovery plan for the 44-State listing of gray wolves.) Text

Me. Lobstermen’s Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 70 F.4th 582 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (NMFS’s issuance of a Biological Opinion was arbitrary and capricious because the ESA did not authorize a substantive presumption in favor of a species, rather requiring the term “likely” to be interpreted by its plain meaning.) Text

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Env’t Prot. Agency, 56 F.4th 55 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (Nonprofit conservation organizations petitioned for review of final administrative actions of EPA, seeking to invalidate EPA’s registration of five pesticides, thereby clearing them under FIFRA for distribution and sale, after EPA failed to consult with agencies that had expertise on pesticides’ risks to species’ survival, as required by ESA. The court granted the motion in part and dismissed in part holding that challenge to registration of cuprous iodide pesticides was moot; petitioners had associational standing; entry of proposed order on consent was within court’s authority; and approval of proposed order was warranted) Text

In re Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 53 F.4th 665 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (Environmental organizations petitioned for writ of mandamus directing the EPA to make the determination required by the ESA as to whether newly registered cyantraniliprole pesticide providing protection from pests that feasted on citrus trees and blueberry bushes would have an adverse effect on endangered species.) Text

Farmworker Ass’n of Fla. v. EPA, No. 21-1079, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 16882 (D.C. Cir. June 7, 2021) (Court vacated the EPA’s approval of the pesticide aldicarb for use on citrus in Florida because the EPA did not make an ESA effects determination prior to approval.)

PHOENIX HERPETOLOGICAL v. US Fish and Wildlife, 998 F. 3d 999 (D.C. Cir. June 4, 2021) (The Phoenix Herpetological Society was denied two permit applications by the FWS, one for the export of blue iguanas, an endangered species and the other to renew the captive-bred wildlife registration for the Society’s entire collection of blue iguanas.) Text

Shafer & Freeman Lakes Envtl. Conservation Corp. v. FERC, 992 F.3d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (Challenge to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s approval of new dam procedures and the FWS’s biological opinion on which it relied.) Text

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Ross, Civil Action No. 18-112 (JEB), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62550 (D.D.C. Apr. 9, 2020) (The NMFS’s biological opinion that a lobster fishery would not jeopardize the continued existence of right whales was illegal under the ESA for not including an incidental take statement.) Text

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) (Environmental group challenging the FWS’s decision to list the northern long-eared bat as “threatened” rather than “endangered”.) Text

Safari Club Int’l v. Zinke, 433 U.S. App. D.C. 339, 878 F.3d 316 (2017) (The FWS erred when it adopted findings related to the killing of trophy animals without conducting the notice-and-comment requirement before adopting the rule.) Text

Humane Soc’y of the U.S. v. Zinke, 865 F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (FWS’s designation of a distinct population segment of grey wolf was arbitrary and capricious.) Text

Defenders of Wildlife v. Zinke, 849 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Upholding FWS rule to remove the gray wolf in Wyoming from the endangered species list.) Text

City of Las Vegas v. Lujan, 891 F.2d 927 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (Challenge to Secretary of Interior’s decision to make an emergency listing for the Mojave Desert population of the desert tortoise.) Text

Alaska

Alaska Ctr. For Env’t v. Rue, 95 P.3d 924 (Alaska 2004) (Decision not to list Cook Inlet beluga whale under the ESA was supported by sufficient evidence.) Text

California

Stanford Vina Ranch Irrigation Co. v. State of Cal., 50 Cal. App. 5th 976 (2020) (State Water Resources Control Board acted within its authority in issuing emergency regulations that established minimum water flow requirements to protect two threatened species of migratory fish during a severe drought.) Text

California Native Plant Soc’y v. Cty. of El Dorado, 170 Cal. App. 4th 1026 (2009) (Court cancelled county’s approval of a development and rezoning project that could harm threatened plant species because an environmental impact report was not prepared prior to approval.) Text

Center for Biological Diversity v. Fish & Game Com., 166 Cal.App.4th 597 (2008) (State court would not take into account an order requiring the California tiger salamander to be listed under the federal ESA when considering whether it should be listed under the state ESA.) Text

Viva! Internat. Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc., 41 Cal. 4th 929, 63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 50, 162 P.3d 569 (2007) (Although a species was not listed as endangered under the ESA the State of California still had broad regulatory authority over unlisted species regarding the importation of kangaroo leather products.) Text

Connecticut

Animal Rights Front, Inc. v. Jacques, 88 Conn.App. 358 (2005) (Modification of rattlesnake habitat was not unreasonable.) Text

Nebraska

Cent. Platte Nat. Res. Dist. V. Fremont, 549 N.W.2d 112 (1996) (Director could not issue permits that would result in the jeopardy of a species listed under the ESA.) Text

New Jersey

ZRB, LLC v. New Jersey Dept. of Envt. Prot., Land Use Regulation, 959 A.2d 866 (App. Div. 2008) (Department of Environmental Protection was authorized to protect listed species.) Text

Oregon

Cty. of Morrow v. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 37 P.3d 180 (2001) (Fish & Wildlife Commission was not required to survey the entire habitat of a species of squirrel before declaring it endangered.) Text

Texas

Dunn v. Public Utility Com’n of Texas, 246 S.W.3d 788 (2008) (Evidence supported a finding that the proposed route for a power line did not cross the habitat of a listed species.) Text

United States Court of International Trade

Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. United States, 606 F.Supp. 3d 1286 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (Conservation organizations filed suit challenging Department of Commerce’s alleged non-compliance with MMPA by failing to implement import ban on fish and fish products caught using fishing technology that killed or seriously injured critically endangered Māui dolphins, in excess of United states standards under MMPA and denial of their petition for emergency rulemaking to implement such a ban.) Text