Ben Rubin

Ben Rubin

Ben Rubin assists clients on a variety of land use and eminent domain related issues, including matters dealing with the Federal and State Endangered Species Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, local zoning variances, right-to-take challenges, valuation of property interests, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Before joining Nossaman, Mr. Rubin was a law clerk to the Honorable Andrew J. Guilford, United States District Judge. He also served as an intern for the Honorable Patrick J. Walsh, United States Magistrate Judge.

Subscribe to all posts by Ben Rubin

Manatee Reclassified from Endangered to Threatened

On April 5, 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) issued a final rule in the Federal Register reclassifying the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) from endangered to threatened under the Endangered Species Act.  Despite the reclassification, the Federal Register explained that while some significant threats have been reduced or eliminated, there are still a number of … Continue Reading

Fifth Circuit Issues Contentious Dissent Over Designation of Louisiana Land

On June 13, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, held that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had properly included approximately 1,500 acres in Louisiana as designated critical habitat for the endangered dusky gopher frog (Rana sevosa), even though the frog did not inhabit the land and significant alterations … Continue Reading

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Issues Annual Candidate Notice

The Candidate Notice of Review is an annual appraisal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) of plants and animals that are candidates for Endangered Species Act protection.  A “candidate” species is a species for which there is sufficient information to support a proposal for listing as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, but the formal … Continue Reading

Wolverine Status Review Reinitiated

The distinct population segment of the North American wolverine (Gulo gulf luscus) has had a long and difficult history with the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  However, things appeared to be changing in 2013, when, after denying a number of prior listing petitions at various stages of the process, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announced its proposal … Continue Reading

District Court Dismisses Challenge to Biological Opinions In Light of Circuit Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction

Primarily relying on precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth and D.C. Circuits, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine recently dismissed an Endangered Species Act (ESA) lawsuit challenging two biological opinions issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for four hydroelectric projects on the Kennebec River in Maine, finding … Continue Reading

D.C. Circuit Holds Informational Standing Nonexistent Prior to 12-Month Finding

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the dismissal of an environmental organization’s Endangered Species Act (ESA) claim, concluding that the organization lacked standing because the informational injury alleged in the complaint could not, as a matter of law, arise until after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife … Continue Reading

Wolf-Rider Introduced in House Funding Bill

As recently reported by the Center for Biological Diversity, a rider has been proposed for an appropriations bill that would provide $1.5 billion to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2017.  The controversial rider would remove current Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolf populations in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Wyoming.  The appropriations bill, which is currently … Continue Reading

Court Rejects ESA Challenge to County’s Local Land Use Planning

On April 8, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that Collier County’s (County) land use planning regulations were complimentary, not contrary to the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  The court also held that the County’s planned future roadway extension did not violate the ESA, because the roadway project was only … Continue Reading
LexBlog