Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Bernhardt
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
2020 WL 6802837 (2020)
- Written by Kate Luck, JD
Facts
The Endangered Species Act (the act) was enacted to protect various plants and animals from extinction. The secretaries of the interior and commerce were responsible for enforcing the act and delegated that responsibility to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (defendant) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (defendant). The FWS and NMFS made revisions to regulations pertaining to the act that deregulated protections for endangered species. In October 2019, the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) (plaintiff) sued the FWS, the NMFS, Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt (defendant), and Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross (defendant) in federal district court for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. A group of organizations (the organizations), a group of private landowners (the landowners), and a group of states (the states) (collectively, the intervenors) filed motions to intervene as defendants. The intervenors argued that their motions were timely filed—either because they were filed before the court made any substantive rulings, or because they were filed close in time to the complaint. The states argued that the regulations being challenged affected how endangered species were protected in each state, that a ruling for the ALDF would interfere with the states’ ability to protect their wildlife, and that the states had an interest in protecting their endangered species. The organizations argued that they represented the industries being regulated by the act, that a ruling for the ALDF would create costly uncertainty for the industries, and that the organizations’ financial interests were different from those of the public. The landowners argued that they had an interest in the litigation as landowners and conservationists, that a ruling for the ALDF would affect the landowners’ use of their land, and that their private interests differed from those of the public. The ALDF did not challenge the intervenors’ allegations.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tigar, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.