Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Zinke, 265 F. Supp. 3d 1161

Background

The Cabinet-Yaak grizzly is a distinct population segment on the MT/ID border with fewer than 50 bears; recovery plan envisions ~100 for viability. FWS previously found the population "warranted but precluded" for uplisting to endangered and assigned high Listing Priority Numbers.
From 2011–2013 FWS reviews characterized the population as small, isolated, and suffering significant human-caused mortality; internal FWS work in 2014 documented improving trends but continued threats.
In December 2014 FWS issued a one‑paragraph finding reversing prior positions and concluded the Cabinet‑Yaak grizzly was "not warranted" for listing as endangered, applying an "on the brink of extinction" formulation (the so‑called Polar Bear memorandum interpretation).
Alliance for the Wild Rockies sued under the ESA and APA, arguing the December 2014 decision was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to follow the ESA’s five‑factor analysis and effected an unexplained change in FWS policy by adopting the "on the brink" standard.
The Court granted Alliance’s motion for summary judgment, vacated the December 5, 2014 "not warranted" determination, reinstated the November 22, 2013 "warranted but precluded" finding, and remanded with instructions for reasoned explanation if FWS intends to apply the Polar Bear interpretation going forward.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing	Alliance's members are harmed because "not warranted" removed the population from line for endangered protections; injury concrete and redressable.	Counties argued Alliance lacked petitioner standing and no concrete injury because "warranted but precluded" offered no protections to lose.	Alliance has Article III and statutory standing; removal from warranted‑but‑precluded is a concrete injury and redressable.
Administrative record completeness	Alliance sought to supplement with post‑decision studies and agency correspondence to show record gaps.	Defendants said administrative record was adequate and most proferred documents post‑date decision or are duplicative.	Court denied supplementation except for a single uncontested document; judicially noticed public documents but refused to use them to reweigh agency science.
Five‑factor analysis under ESA	Alliance argued FWS failed to meaningfully address the ESA’s five factors and cite best available science in the Dec. 2014 finding.	FWS contended its species assessment in the administrative record contained the five‑factor analysis and satisfied statutory requirements.	Court held FWS satisfied the five‑factor/publication statutory requirements by including the analysis in the administrative record; rejected plaintiffs’ five‑factor claim on those grounds.
Change in interpretation of "endangered" ("on the brink") and APA compliance	Alliance argued Dec. 2014 relied on a new Polar Bear interpretation ("on the brink of extinction") without acknowledgment or reasoned explanation for a policy change.	FWS argued Polar Bear memorandum merely summarized longstanding interpretations and was nonbinding guidance deserving deference.	Court found FWS effectively changed policy, afforded little Skidmore weight to the "on the brink" interpretation, and concluded FWS failed to provide required reasoned explanation — decision arbitrary and capricious; vacated and remanded.

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (standards for summary judgment)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary and capricious standard under APA)
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (agency statutory interpretation/ deference framework)
Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (weight of agency interpretations not entitled to Chevron)
Mead Corp. v. United States, 533 U.S. 218 (when Chevron deference applies; force‑of‑law inquiry)
Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167 (environmental standing principles)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (injury‑in‑fact requirements)
Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019 (limits on supplementing administrative record)
Organized Village of Kake v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 795 F.3d 956 (requirements for reasoned explanation when changing agency policy)
In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing & 4(d) Rule Litigation, 794 F. Supp. 2d 65 (D.D.C.). (discussion of FWS's Polar Bear memorandum and interpretation of "in danger of extinction")
Presidio Historical Ass'n v. Presidio Trust, 811 F.3d 1154 (Skidmore factors / persuasiveness of agency guidance)
Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 402 F.3d 846 (limits on courts substituting their judgment for agency under APA)