Lexplug logoLexplug

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv.

Supreme Court of the United States
2018 U.S. LEXIS 6932, 139 S. Ct. 361, 202 L. Ed. 2d 269 (2018)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Endangered Species Act, an area must first be 'habitat' for a species to be designated as 'critical habitat'. Additionally, an agency's decision not to exclude an area from a critical habitat designation based on economic considerations is subject to judicial review for abuse of discretion.


Facts:

  • The dusky gopher frog is an endangered amphibian that requires open-canopy longleaf pine forests and ephemeral ponds to live and breed.
  • Due to widespread deforestation, by 2001 the known wild population of the frog had dwindled to 100 individuals at a single pond in Mississippi.
  • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listed the frog as endangered and later proposed designating several areas as its critical habitat.
  • This proposal included a 1,544-acre parcel in Louisiana known as 'Unit 1,' where the frog had not been seen since 1965.
  • While Unit 1 contained high-quality ephemeral ponds suitable for breeding, the surrounding land was a closed-canopy timber plantation, which is inhospitable to the frog.
  • The FWS determined that the forest on Unit 1 could be restored to a suitable open-canopy state with 'reasonable effort' and that the site was essential for the species' conservation.
  • Weyerhaeuser Company and other private landowners owned or leased Unit 1 and had plans for its commercial development.
  • An economic analysis concluded that designating Unit 1 as critical habitat could prevent development and cost the landowners up to $33.9 million.

Procedural Posture:

  • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated a 1,544-acre property ('Unit 1') as critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog.
  • Weyerhaeuser Company and other landowners sued the FWS in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, seeking to vacate the designation.
  • The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the FWS, upholding the designation.
  • Weyerhaeuser, the appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
  • The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling, holding that 'critical habitat' need not be habitable and that the FWS's decision not to exclude the land was unreviewable.
  • The landowners' petition for rehearing en banc before the Fifth Circuit was denied.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Fifth Circuit's decision.

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:

First, does the Endangered Species Act authorize the designation of land as 'critical habitat' for a species when that land is not currently habitable by the species? Second, is an agency's decision not to exclude an area from a critical habitat designation, after weighing the economic impact, subject to judicial review?


Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Roberts

No, the Endangered Species Act does not authorize designating land as 'critical habitat' unless it is first habitat for the species. Yes, an agency's decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat designation is subject to judicial review. The Court reasoned that the plain language and grammatical structure of 'critical habitat' imply that the designated area must first be 'habitat.' The statute itself requires the Secretary to designate 'any habitat of such species which is then considered to be critical habitat,' limiting the pool of eligible land. Regarding the second issue, the Court held that the Administrative Procedure Act establishes a strong presumption of judicial review. The Endangered Species Act provides a 'meaningful standard' for review by requiring the Secretary to consider economic impacts and weigh the benefits of exclusion against designation. Therefore, the agency's discretionary decision is not 'committed to agency discretion by law' and can be reviewed by a court for abuse of discretion. The Court vacated the lower court's judgment and remanded the case for it to determine what constitutes 'habitat' and to review the agency's economic decision.



Analysis:

This decision places significant constraints on the federal government's authority under the Endangered Species Act. By establishing that 'critical habitat' must first be 'habitat,' the Court limits the government's ability to designate areas that are currently unsuitable for a species, even if they could be restored. This creates a higher evidentiary burden for the Fish and Wildlife Service when designating unoccupied areas. Furthermore, by affirming that the economic balancing decisions are judicially reviewable, the Court empowers landowners to challenge designations more effectively, forcing agencies to rigorously justify their cost-benefit analyses. The ruling will likely lead to more litigation over the definition of 'habitat' and the thoroughness of agency economic assessments in future ESA cases.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv. (2018)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"