Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Argued October 1, 2018
Full case name Weyerhaeuser Company, Petitioner v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.
Docket nos. 17-71
Citations TBD U.S. ___ (more)
Questions presented

Whether the Endangered Species Act prohibits designation of private land as unoccupied critical habitat that is neither habitat nor essential to species conservation.

Whether an agency decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat because of the economic impact of designation is subject to judicial review.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch

Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service is a pending United States Supreme Court case regarding the demarcation of 1544 acres of private land in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana as "critical habitat" for the dusky gopher frog by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.[1][2]

Background

The dusky gopher frog

The dusky gopher frog is critically endangered due to habitat loss, numbering 135 as of 2015; the frog needs ephemeral ponds for breeding, and is only found around one pond in De Soto National Forest, Mississippi.[1][3][4] In 2012, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service designated 1544 acres of land ("Unit 1") situated more than 50 miles from the pond in Mississippi where the frog resides as "critical habitat". The land, owned in part by Weyerhaeuser and with the rest leased to them for harvesting timber, was last known to have the frogs in the 1960s. Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, land that is not inhabited by a species but is "essential for the conservation of the species" can be classed as "critical habitat".[2][4]

Unit 1 has five ephemeral ponds, which are of "remarkable quality" according to the Fish and Wildlife Service, but does not have open canopies, another required characteristic for it to be a habitat for the frogs; Weyerhaeuser argues that the land only has one of the required characteristics for being a habitat for the frog and that "Vast portions of the United States could be designated as critical habitat if a single feature used by an endangered species is present".[2][4] The government says that it is feasible to transform Unit 1 into a habitat for the frogs and that there is no immediate impact of the designation, and cited multiple scientific studies to say that the land was vital for the conservation of the frog.[3][4] It also argued that since the frog is only found in one area, transplanting the frog to other areas is necessary to prevent the extinction of the frog.[2]

As the designation could cause $33 million in devaluation of the land over 20 years due to implications on possible future development, Weyerhaeuser challenged the decision.[4][5] The Eastern district court of Louisiana upheld the designation in 2013 and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed it 2-1 in 2016, holding that the Fish and Wildlife Service was not arbitrarily designating Unit 1 as "critical habitat", and that while under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service "may exclude any area from critical habitat if [it] determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat", a decision not to exclude based on economic impact was not subject to judicial review.[2][5][6]

Supreme court

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in January 2018.[5] Oral hearings occurred on October 1, 2018.[1]

References

  1. 1 2 3 S. M. (1 October 2018). "An endangered frog takes centre stage at the Supreme Court". The Economist. Retrieved 7 October 2018.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Heinzerling, Llsa (24 September 2018). "Argument preview: Justices to consider critical-habitat designation for endangered frog". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 7 October 2018.
  3. 1 2 Meyer, Robinson (27 September 2018). "Why This Weird Little Frog Should Care About Brett Kavanaugh". The Atlantic. Retrieved 7 October 2018.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Robert, Barnes (29 September 2018). "'They're great little animals': The dusky gopher frog goes before the Supreme Court". The Washington Post. Retrieved 7 October 2018.
  5. 1 2 3 Livni, Ephrat (2 February 2018). "Endangered animals: A new Supreme Court case centers on the dusky gopher frog". Quartz. Retrieved 7 October 2018.
  6. ↑ Markle Interest, L.L.C. v. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 827 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2016).
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.