Endangered Species Law & Policy

In December 2020, the United States District Court for the District of Montana issued an order on cross-motions for summary judgment concluding that it lacked jurisdiction—under both the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA)—to hear a lawsuit involving an environmental group’s denied request to update an existing recovery plan for the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis). Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt, CV 19-109-M-DLC, at 26 (D. Mont. Dec. 23, 2020) (Order). After listing the grizzly bear nearly half a century ago, the U.S ...

The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana has approved a partial settlement between the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) requiring that the Service complete and post a status review of the lower-48 grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) populations no later than March 31, 2021.  Earlier this year, CBD filed a lawsuit challenging the Service’s alleged failure to update a 1993 federal recovery plan for the species.  The partial settlement disposes of CBD’s first claim for relief, which alleged that the Service had ...

On January 10, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Alaska issued an order (pdf) vacating the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's critical habitat designation for the polar bear after concluding that the Service failed to comply with substantive and procedural requirements in the Endangered Species Act.  Specifically, the district court found that the administrative record produced by the Service failed to contain evidence of the essential "physical or biological features" necessary to justify the designation of two large areas as critical ...