Center for Bio. Diversity v. Deb Haaland, 58 F.4th 412

Background:

The ESA requires the Secretary to adopt recovery plans for endangered/threatened species; the Fish & Wildlife Service adopted a Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (1982; revised 1993) and later issued Supplements with habitat-based criteria.
In 2014 the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the Service to amend the Plan to identify additional recovery areas (e.g., parts of AZ, NM, CA, UT) and update recovery strategies.
The Service denied the petition, explaining it treats recovery plans as non‑binding guidance, that §553(e) petitions do not authorize mandatory amendments to recovery plans, and that any future revision is discretionary.
The Center sued under the APA and the ESA; the district court granted summary judgment to the Service, holding the Plan was not an APA “rule” subject to §553(e) and that the court lacked ESA citizen‑suit jurisdiction.
The Ninth Circuit panel assumed (for argument) the Plan could be a "rule" and that §553(e) petitions could be filed, but held the Service’s denial was not "final agency action" under Bennett v. Spear and therefore not reviewable under 5 U.S.C. §704; Judge Sung dissented, arguing denial of a rulemaking petition is reviewable final action.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a recovery plan is a "rule" under the APA and thus subject to petition under 5 U.S.C. §553(e)	The Plan is an agency statement that implements/interprets ESA duties and thus is a "rule"; §553(e) allows petitions to amend non‑binding rules	Recovery plans are non‑binding guidance, not APA "rules" subject to §553(e)	Court assumed arguendo a recovery plan could be a "rule," so this question was not resolved on the merits
Whether the Service’s denial of the Center’s petition is "final agency action" under Bennett v. Spear	Denial of a §553(e) petition is a definitive agency decision that determines the petitioner’s statutory right to petition and is therefore final and reviewable	Denial is not final because recovery plans are non‑binding, impose no legal obligations or rights, and denial creates no legal consequences	Held: Denial is not final agency action (no APA review under §704)
Whether the district court had jurisdiction under the ESA citizen‑suit provision	Center argued ESA required the Service to update recovery plans and citizen suit jurisdiction exists	Service and intervenors argued the Center did not allege a nondiscretionary duty failure and district court lacked ESA jurisdiction	Court (and district court) found no ESA citizen‑suit jurisdiction; Center did not challenge that holding on appeal
Standard and scope of review if denial of petition were reviewable	Center sought arbitrary-and-capricious review of denial	Service argued review should be narrow or unavailable because action is non‑binding/discretionary	On dissent’s view (not adopted), denial of petition would be reviewable under the deferential arbitrary‑and‑capricious standard; majority did not reach merits

Key Cases Cited

Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (two‑part test for final agency action)
Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 575 U.S. 92 (2015) (broad APA definition of "rule")
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (agency petition denial reviewable where regulation would alter legal rights/obligations)
Friends of Blackwater v. Salazar, 691 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (recovery plans are non‑binding "roadmaps")
Oregon Nat. Desert Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 465 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2006) (pragmatic/flexible approach to finality and practical effects test)
Independent Equip. Dealers Ass’n v. EPA, 372 F.3d 420 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (agency letters denying requests can be non‑reviewable where they impose no obligations)
Weight Watchers Int’l, Inc. v. FTC, 47 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 1995) (denial of petition for rulemaking generally final absent clear legislative intent to preclude review)
WWHT, Inc. v. FCC, 656 F.2d 807 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (scope of review for denial of rulemaking petitions and remedy limited to remand)