Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition v. Kempthorne
477 F.3d 1250, 63 ERC (BNA) 2098, 37 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20040 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Endangered Species Act's application to a purely intrastate species is a valid exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power because regulating such species is an essential part of a larger, comprehensive scheme to protect biodiversity, which in the aggregate substantially affects interstate commerce. Furthermore, an agency's failure to meet a statutory deadline, such as for designating critical habitat, does not invalidate a scientifically supported and procedurally sound species listing.
Facts:
- The Alabama sturgeon, a freshwater fish found exclusively in Alabama's Mobile River Basin, was once abundant enough to be commercially harvested, with an estimated 20,000 caught at the end of the 19th century.
- The fish's population declined drastically over the 20th century due to a combination of over-fishing, dam construction for power production, dredging to improve navigation, and general declines in water and habitat quality.
- A scientist first classified the fish as endangered in 1976, and its continued rarity was confirmed in the 1990s when diligent fishing efforts yielded only eight confirmed catches.
- A scientific debate arose as to whether the Alabama sturgeon was a distinct species or genetically indistinct from the more common shovelnose sturgeon.
- Genetic studies on the matter produced conflicting evidence; some analyses of the cytochrome b gene showed high similarity to the shovelnose sturgeon, while analyses of the 'd-loop' region and nuclear DNA indicated significant genetic divergence.
- Despite the mixed genetic data, the consensus within the scientific community, including peer-reviewed ichthyological literature and expert reviews, recognized the Alabama sturgeon as a taxonomically valid and distinct species based on morphological and biogeographical evidence.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1993, the Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) first proposed listing the Alabama sturgeon as an endangered species.
- The Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition (the Coalition) sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama and obtained an injunction against the Service's use of a scientific report; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in 1994.
- The Service subsequently withdrew the proposed listing.
- On May 5, 2000, after a new proposal process, the Service issued a final rule listing the Alabama sturgeon as endangered but did not designate its critical habitat.
- The Coalition filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, challenging the final rule under the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
- The district court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing.
- The Coalition appealed, and the Eleventh Circuit reversed in 2003, holding that the Coalition had standing to sue.
- On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for the Service, upholding the listing but ordering the agency to designate critical habitat by a future date.
- The Coalition (appellant) appealed the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, with the Service as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's final rule listing the Alabama sturgeon as an endangered species violate federal law because: (1) the agency failed to use the best scientific data available, making the decision arbitrary and capricious; (2) the agency failed to concurrently designate critical habitat; or (3) the Endangered Species Act, as applied to a purely intrastate species, exceeds Congress's Commerce Clause power?
Opinions:
Majority - Carnes, J.
No. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's final rule listing the Alabama sturgeon as endangered does not violate federal law. The agency's decision was based on the best available science, its failure to concurrently designate critical habitat does not invalidate the listing, and the Endangered Species Act's application to this species is a constitutional exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power. The Service did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by weighing conflicting scientific evidence and relying on the consensus of its own experts and the broader ichthyological community that the Alabama sturgeon is a distinct species. While the Service violated the ESA's timeline by failing to designate critical habitat, the legislative history makes clear that Congress intended for listing decisions to proceed without delay, and vacating the listing would defeat the fundamental purpose of the Act. Finally, applying the ESA to a purely intrastate species is constitutional under the Commerce Clause because, under the reasoning of Gonzales v. Raich, the protection of individual species is an essential part of a comprehensive federal scheme to regulate biodiversity, an activity which, in the aggregate, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce through its impact on medicine, agriculture, and tourism.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies judicial deference to agency expertise in resolving complex scientific disputes under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Endangered Species Act. The court's Commerce Clause analysis is particularly significant, as it strongly affirms the 'class of activities' aggregation principle from Gonzales v. Raich in the environmental context. By holding that the protection of a single, non-commercial, intrastate species is constitutional as an 'essential part' of a larger economic regulatory scheme (preserving biodiversity), the ruling effectively insulates the ESA from piecemeal, as-applied challenges. It establishes that the potential future and aggregate economic value of biodiversity provides a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce, thereby securing a broad basis for federal environmental regulation.
