Humane Society of the United States v. Ryan Zinke (Lead)
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13912
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) issued a 2011 Rule creating a "Western Great Lakes" distinct population segment (DPS) of gray wolves (including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and parts of eight other states) and immediately delisted that DPS from the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
- The Humane Society challenged the 2011 Rule under the ESA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); the district court vacated the Rule for multiple legal and procedural defects.
- Prior regulatory history: multiple earlier Service attempts (2003, 2007, 2009) to subdivide/delist gray wolf populations were invalidated or withdrawn; the Solicitor issued an opinion (2008) supporting the Service’s authority to designate and delist DPSs.
- Key statutory framework: ESA defines "species" to include distinct population segments, requires five-factor analysis and the best scientific data for listing/delisting, and mandates periodic review/revision of listings.
- The D.C. Circuit held the Service may lawfully designate a DPS within an already-listed species and assign it a different status, but remanded and affirmed vacatur because the Service failed to (a) analyze effects of carving out the DPS on the remainder (the remnant), and (b) consider the consequences of substantial historical range loss when evaluating current-range threats.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to designate a DPS within a listed species and delist that DPS | Humane Society: ESA does not permit creating a DPS solely to delist; DPS tool should be protective only | Service: ESA text and Solicitor Opinion permit designation and delisting of recovered DPSs when statutory criteria met | Service has authority to designate and delist a DPS within a listed species, if proper findings are made (Chevron deference applies) |
| Requirement to assess effects on the remnant (remaining listed population) | Humane Society: Service must analyze whether remnant remains a protectable species/segment after carving out DPS | Service: characterized action as revision of Minnesota listing or revocation of protections for DPS only | Service failed here — must evaluate remnant’s status; omission made Rule arbitrary and capricious; vacated Rule |
| Meaning of "range": current vs historical | Humane Society: historical range loss is relevant; Service cannot ignore historical contraction | Service: "range" reasonably interpreted as "current range" | Court: "range" may reasonably mean "current range," but Service must consider historical-range loss’s impact; failure to do so was arbitrary and capricious |
| Adequacy of analysis on mortality, disease, and state protections | Humane Society: Service ignored combined threats from disease and human-caused mortality and inadequate state plans | Service: record-based analysis showed population growth despite mortality; state plans and monitoring adequate; limited presence in several states minimizes risk | Court: Service’s disease and mortality analyses and consideration of state plans were supported by evidence and not arbitrary, but broader defects (remnant and historical-range omissions) remain fatal |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978) (Congress intended ESA to halt and reverse species extinction)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency deference framework)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001) (historical range can inform significance of range loss)
- Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995) (agency expertise and delegated authority under ESA)
- Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard for agency decisionmaking)