Defenders of Wildlife v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Interior
case brief
354 F.Supp.2d 1156
354 F.Supp.2d 1156
CASE SYNOPSIS: In an action filed by
plaintiffs, 19 environmental organizations, alleging that defendant
Secretary of the United States Department of Interior violated the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C.S. §§ 1531-1543, the ESA's
implementing regulations, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
by changing the status of the gray wolf from "endangered"
to "threatened" in some regions, the parties moved for
summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
FACTS: The environmental organizations had standing to challenge the Secretary's final rule concerning the gray wolf because their affidavits demonstrated that individual members had an aesthetic or recreational interest in observing wolves and their decreased protection impaired the members' ability to observe wolves, which was an injury in fact. The Secretary downlisted the wolf throughout the Eastern and Western distinct population segments (DPSs) because she determined that the wolf was not in danger of extinction in any "significant portion of its range" within either DPS.
FACTS: The environmental organizations had standing to challenge the Secretary's final rule concerning the gray wolf because their affidavits demonstrated that individual members had an aesthetic or recreational interest in observing wolves and their decreased protection impaired the members' ability to observe wolves, which was an injury in fact. The Secretary downlisted the wolf throughout the Eastern and Western distinct population segments (DPSs) because she determined that the wolf was not in danger of extinction in any "significant portion of its range" within either DPS.
DISCUSSION
- The court held that the Secretary's interpretation of "significant portion of its range" as used in 16 U.S.C.S. § 1532(6) was not reasonable.
- The Secretary's conclusion that the viability of two core populations in the Eastern and Western DPSs made all other portions of the wolf's historical or current range insignificant and unworthy of stringent protection was contrary to the ESA and appellate court precedent.
- The Secretary's application of the DPS Policy was also inconsistent with the Policy and the ESA.
No comments:
Post a Comment