Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Bureau of Land Management
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
698 F.3d 1101 (2012)

- Written by Colette Routel, JD
Facts
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (defendant) approved the construction of a 678-mile natural-gas pipeline, known as the Ruby Pipeline Project. The BLM’s approval relied on a biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (defendant) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), which concluded the project would not jeopardize the continued existence of any federally endangered or threatened fish species. The Center for Biological Diversity, other environmental groups, and two Indian tribes (collectively, environmental groups) (plaintiffs) sued the BLM and FWS. Among other things, the environmental groups argued that the biological opinion was arbitrary and capricious because it acknowledged that the project would impact 209 water bodies and nine different protected species but claimed that it would not jeopardize the continued existence of any of these species. The biological opinion did so based on mitigation measures proposed in a conservation plan drafted by the project proponent, but full funding for implementation of those mitigation measures had not been obtained, and the mitigation measures were not enforceable under the ESA.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Berzon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 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.