In yet another victory for property rights, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco, has ruled in favor of reason and the interests of Mountain States Legal Foundation’s clients!
In the case of CBD v. Haaland, Judge Hurwitz’s opinion holds that the federal courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the Center for Biological Diversity’s (CBD) claims. The Court firmly held that the “decision not to amend the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, like adoption of the Plan itself,” is not reviewable by the court.
This case centers around the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Area grizzly bear. Back in the early 1990s, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) developed a recovery plan for the bear, which had been placed on the endangered species list. A recovery plan is like a roadmap for how the FWS will engage in species recovery. They are not binding and can be supplemented as necessary.
CBD’s ultimate goal was to gain the ability to ask for changes to the recovery plan and then sue when the changes weren’t made, forcing agencies like the FWS to waste taxpayers’ time and money re-defending every aspect of a recovery plan that is not even binding. The result, as MSLF General Counsel William Trachman said, could have been unending years of countless lawsuits, putting “the FWS to a choice: give in to the whims of environmental advocates, or litigate a thousand cases.”
Recovery plans are supposed to be flexible, enabling the FWS to adjust their actions or make entirely new plans to recover and conserve endangered species. The Center for Biological Diversity instead wanted to implement their own plans for expanding the grizzly bear population to places where they have not lived in generations. If CBD had won this case, it would have opened wide the floodgates for judicial review of every change CBD ever wanted to propose to this and many other recovery plans.
The Court’s ruling ensures that will not happen. Mountain States’ direct involvement in this case has kept recovery plans flexible, and defended them against unwarranted litigation from organizations like CBD. Our attorneys worked diligently to protect the rights and interests of farmers and ranchers, shielding them from the radical agenda of anti-growth environmentalists.
Trachman, who is lead counsel on the case, stated, “The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in favor of our clients is a clear win for property rights and sound, principled policy. Our work here will deter future nuisance litigation from environmental extremists.”
