Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

National Assn. of Home Builders v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

May 26, 2015

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS, ET AL., APPELLANTS
v.
UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND SALLY JEWELL, IN HER OFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, APPELLEES

Argued May 4, 2015

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. (No. 1:12-cv-02013).

Rafe Petersen argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.

Nicholas A. DiMascio, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees.

With him on the brief were John C. Cruden, Assistant Attorney General, and Joan M. Pepin, Attorney.

Before: BROWN, SRINIVASAN and PILLARD, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

Page 1051

Brown, Circuit Judge

Four associations challenge consent decrees that require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine, in accordance with a settlement-defined schedule for action, whether 251 species should be listed as endangered or threatened. Because the associations lack standing to raise their challenge, we affirm the district court's dismissal.

I

Under the Endangered Species Act (" ESA" or " Act" ), the public may petition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (" Service" ) to list a particular species as endangered or threatened. The Service is required to determine, within twelve months, if listing is (1) not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) warranted-but-precluded. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(B). A warranted-but-precluded determination allows the Service to defer action on a candidate species in order to focus agency resources on higher priority determinations. The Service must monitor precluded candidate species and annually revisit the determination. On revisiting, the Service may continue to identify the species as precluded. See id. § 1533(b)(3)(C).

" [T]he number of warranted-but-precluded findings has outpaced the number of listings, [and] the backlog of [precluded] candidate species had grown to 251 as of 2010." Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 34 F.Supp.3d 50, 54 (D.D.C. 2014). Two environmental groups brought suits seeking " to compel the . . . [agency] to comply with deadlines set forth in the Endangered Species Act." In re Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litig.-MDL No. 2165, 704 F.3d 972, 974, 403 U.S. App.D.C. 276 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Under the terms of subsequent settlements, the Service must meet strict deadlines for submitting either a warranted or not-warranted finding for all 251 candidate species. The Service maintains discretion regarding the substance of each listing determination.

Appellants, four membership associations involved in building and developing land, filed suit under the APA and the ESA's citizen-suit provision, 16 U.S.C. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.