Safari Club International v. Salazar
43 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20050, 404 U.S. App. D.C. 171, 709 F.3d 1 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agency's decision to list a species under the Endangered Species Act, when based on a high level of technical expertise and supported by the best available scientific data, will be upheld under the Administrative Procedure Act's arbitrary and capricious standard so long as the agency articulates a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.
Facts:
- The Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
- Polar bears are a species highly dependent on Arctic sea ice for essential life functions, including hunting, breeding, and movement.
- The worldwide polar bear population is estimated at 20,000-25,000 individuals, distributed across 19 relatively discrete populations.
- Scientific data, including reports from the U.S. Geological Survey and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, indicates that global climate change is causing a rapid and continuing decline in the extent and quality of Arctic sea ice.
- This loss of sea ice habitat is projected to continue for the foreseeable future, threatening the polar bear's ability to survive.
- The FWS determined that this habitat loss would lead to nutritional stress, reduced reproduction, and declining populations across the species' range.
- While some polar bear populations are in regions somewhat insulated from immediate effects, climate models predict that sea ice loss will eventually affect all populations throughout their range.
Procedural Posture:
- The Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to list the polar bear as a threatened species in 2005.
- After a multi-year rulemaking process involving scientific reviews and public comment, the FWS issued a final Listing Rule in 2008, designating the polar bear as a threatened species throughout its range.
- Numerous industry groups, environmental organizations, and states filed lawsuits challenging the Listing Rule.
- The lawsuits were consolidated into a Multidistrict Litigation case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (a federal trial court).
- The District Court initially remanded the rule for the FWS to clarify its interpretation of the statutory term 'endangered species,' which the FWS did in a supplemental explanation.
- Upon review of the full record and supplemental explanation, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the FWS, upholding the Listing Rule.
- The challengers (Joint Appellants) filed a timely appeal of the District Court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the Fish and Wildlife Service's rule listing the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, based on projected habitat loss due to climate change, an arbitrary and capricious agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Edwards, Senior Circuit Judge
No. The Fish and Wildlife Service's rule listing the polar bear as a threatened species was not arbitrary and capricious because it was the product of reasoned decisionmaking based on a comprehensive review of the best available scientific data. The court's review under the Administrative Procedure Act is narrow, particularly for decisions requiring a high level of technical expertise. The FWS's decision rested on a reasonable and undisputed three-part thesis: polar bears depend on sea ice for survival, sea ice is declining, and climate change will continue this decline, thereby jeopardizing the species. Appellants did not challenge the underlying scientific data but merely disagreed with the agency's interpretation and conclusions. The court found that FWS adequately explained the link between habitat loss and the species' future endangerment, properly justified its range-wide determination instead of using Distinct Population Segments, reasonably defined 'likely' and the 'foreseeable future' (45 years), and fulfilled its procedural obligations to consider foreign conservation efforts and respond to the State of Alaska's comments.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the significant deference courts afford to expert agencies making predictive scientific judgments under the Endangered Species Act. It confirms an agency's authority to list a species based on future threats, such as those posed by climate change, even when the exact timing and magnitude of the harm involve uncertainty. The ruling establishes that challengers cannot succeed under the 'arbitrary and capricious' standard by merely offering competing views on science; they must show a clear error in the agency's reasoning or a failure to consider important data. This precedent strengthens the legal foundation for proactive conservation measures based on climate modeling and scientific forecasting.
Unlock the full brief for Safari Club International v. Salazar