Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
3:23-cv-00936
| M.D. Fla. | Nov 22, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs, the Center for Biological Diversity and Nokuse Education, Inc., challenged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) denial of endangered or threatened status for the gopher tortoise under the Endangered Species Act.
- Plaintiffs sought judicial review of the FWS's determination, focusing on the agency's use of population viability modeling.
- The case's procedural posture involved a dispute over the contents of the administrative record; after some agreement, plaintiffs moved to supplement the record with a declaration from Dr. Kevin Shoemaker, a wildlife population ecologist.
- Dr. Shoemaker's declaration argued that the FWS's modeling contained technical errors leading to an underestimation of the species' risk of extinction; this evidence was not part of the record before the agency.
- Plaintiffs claimed the declaration was necessary to explain technical aspects and complex terms in the FWS’s population modeling.
- The Court had to determine whether such extra-record evidence could be admitted for its review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of extra-record evidence | Declaration needed to clarify technical modeling | Exception not recognized in 11th Circuit | Denied |
| Whether model explanation fits technical-terms exception | Exception applies: evidence is explanatory | Declaration rebuts, not just explains, agency findings | Does not fit exception |
| Legal standard for supplementing administrative record | Technical-terms exception recognized elsewhere | Only bad-faith exception applies in circuit | Bad-faith only |
| Whether FWS acted in bad faith | Did not allege bad faith | No showing of bad faith alleged or proven | No basis for admission |
Key Cases Cited
- Preserve Endangered Areas of Cobb's History, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 87 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 1996) (administrative record is focal point for judicial review; Ninth Circuit technical-terms exception not adopted in Eleventh Circuit)
- Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition v. Kempthorne, 477 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2007) (court may only go beyond record for strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior)
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) (review of agency decisions is generally limited to the administrative record except for strong showing of bad faith)
- National Mining Association v. Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Labor, 812 F.3d 843 (11th Cir. 2016) (reaffirming bad faith as the key exception to the administrative record rule)