Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • A
  • Arizona Cattle Growers’ Ass'n v. U.S. …Arizona Cattle Growers’ Ass'n v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Arizona Cattle Growers’ Ass'n v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
273 F.3d 1229 (2001)


The Arizona Cattle Growers Association (ACGA) (plaintiff) sought permits for livestock grazing on public lands. As part of the consultation process required by § 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (defendant) issued biological opinions regarding the impact of the grazing on protected species. The biological opinions included incidental take statements (ITSs) that imposed conditions on the incidental taking of various species. The FWS interpreted a taking under § 7 to encompass possible or likely harm to a species. This interpretation was more expansive than the FWS’s interpretation of a taking under § 9, which penalized ESA violations. The FWS created ITSs for certain species of fish, including the razorback sucker and the loach minnow. However, the FWS lacked evidence of the razorback sucker’s presence on the public lands, and based the ITS on speculation that grazing would cause habitat modification. Although the FWS based the loach minnow’s ITS on evidence that livestock could trample the species’ habitat, the FWS did not specify the amount or extent of a potential taking under the ESA. The FWS also failed to provide a clear standard for determining that an excess take had occurred, stating vaguely that a failure to improve ecological conditions could result in an excess take. The ACGA challenged the FWS’s ITSs in district court. The district court applied a reasonable-certainty standard and found that the issuance of an ITS without demonstrating a take to a reasonable certainty was arbitrary and capricious. The district court granted the ACGA’s motion for partial summary judgment. The FWS appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Wardlaw, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 448,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 448,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial