748 F. Supp. 2d 19
D.D.C.2010Background
- FWS listed the polar bear as threatened under the ESA in 2008, triggering multiple consolidated lawsuits.
- Plaintiffs challenge the Listing Rule under ESA and APA, alleging arbitrary and capricious agency action.
- Court analyzes whether endangered species must be in imminent danger of extinction and whether FWS misapplied the statute.
- Threshold issue: whether the ESA’s endangered definition requires imminence; court finds ambiguity after statutory text and structure analysis.
- Court concludes agency misread the definition as plain meaning and remands for clarification, staying the rule in force during remand.
- Court declines to resolve merits of summary judgment motions pending remand and schedules limited remand proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the ESA require imminence to designate endangered? | CBD: endangered requires imminent extinction. | FWS: plain meaning and structure imply imminence. | Statutory ambiguity; remand for interpretation |
| Is Chevron deference appropriate when endangered definiton is ambiguous? | Not applicable; rely on agency interpretation. | Chevron step two supports agency interpretation. | No deferential holding; remand without Chevron deference |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (U.S. 1978) (ESA described as comprehensive)
- Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-step review for agency interpretation)
- Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRC, 462 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1983) (requires rational connection between facts and decision)
- PDK Labs., Inc. v. DEA, 362 F.3d 786 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (limits deference when agency misconstrues statute)
- Humane Soc'y v. Kempthorne, 579 F.Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C. 2008) (remand for ambiguous statutory terms; need reasoned justification)
- In re Checkosky, 23 F.3d 452 (D.C.Cir. 1994) (remand appropriate to cure deficiencies without vacating rule)
- City of Cleveland v. NRC, 68 F.3d 1361 (D.C.Cir. 1995) (legislative history can inform plain meaning)
- National Cement Co. v. MSHA, 494 F.3d 1066 (D.C.Cir. 2007) (supports remand approach when ambiguity exists)