Lexplug logoLexplug

Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
2001 WL 856080, 258 F.3d 1136 (2001)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Endangered Species Act, a species is eligible for protection if it is in danger of extinction in a 'significant portion of its range,' which refers to major geographical areas where the species is no longer viable but once was, regardless of the species' viability in the remainder of its range.


Facts:

  • The flat-tailed horned lizard is a species native to the Sonoran desert in southern California, southwestern Arizona, and northwestern Mexico.
  • Over the last century, human activity, including agriculture and urban development, resulted in the disappearance of approximately 34% of the lizard's historical habitat.
  • In response to concerns about the lizard's viability, several federal and state agencies entered into a Conservation Agreement (CA) to implement a management strategy to protect the species.
  • The CA focused on creating five 'management areas' on public lands to reduce threats to the lizard through measures like limiting habitat disturbance.
  • Relying on the protections for the lizard on public lands under the CA, the Secretary of the Interior concluded that the species as a whole was not in danger of extinction, despite acknowledging significant habitat loss on private lands.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Secretary of the Interior published a proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned lizard as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
  • Following delays, including a congressional moratorium on listings and the creation of a multi-agency Conservation Agreement, the Secretary issued a final decision withdrawing the proposed rule.
  • Defenders of Wildlife filed suit against the Secretary of the Interior in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, challenging the withdrawal decision as arbitrary and capricious.
  • The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary, upholding the decision not to list the lizard.
  • Defenders of Wildlife, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the Secretary as appellee.

Locked

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 Secretary of the Interior act arbitrarily and capriciously by withdrawing a proposed rule to list a species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act without properly analyzing whether the species is in danger of extinction throughout a 'significant portion of its range'?


Opinions:

Majority - Berzon, Circuit Judge

Yes. The Secretary's decision was arbitrary and capricious because it relied on an improper legal standard and failed to consider an important aspect of the problem. The Secretary's interpretation of 'a significant portion of its range'—that threats must be so severe as to endanger the entire species' viability—renders the phrase superfluous, as the statute separately covers species in danger of extinction 'throughout all' of their range. The court, citing legislative history, determined that Congress intended the phrase to allow for listing a species in major geographical areas where it is no longer viable, even if it persists elsewhere. By failing to analyze whether the lizard's lost habitat on private land constituted a 'significant portion of its range,' the Secretary ignored a key statutory requirement, making the decision to withdraw the proposed listing invalid.



Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the meaning of the phrase 'significant portion of its range' under the Endangered Species Act. By rejecting the Secretary's holistic viability standard, the court prevents the government from ignoring the extirpation of a species from large geographical areas of its historic habitat simply because it survives elsewhere. This interpretation empowers conservation groups to compel listing even when a species is not on the brink of total, global extinction. The ruling forces agencies to conduct a more granular, geographically specific analysis, strengthening the ESA's ability to protect species before their decline becomes irreversible across their entire range.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton (2001) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton