Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt
United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
2 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (1998)
- Written by Erin Enser, JD
Facts
Several plant species in Hawaii were designated as threatened or endangered, which, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), should have resulted in the designation of critical habitats. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (defendant), pursuant to its regulations, refused to designate critical habitats, arguing that (1) the designation of critical habitats would increase illegal taking of the species; (2) the designation of critical habitats on private land had no benefit, because the consultation requirement of the ESA did not apply to private activities; and (3) the designation of critical habitats on federal land had no benefit, because the protections afforded to threatened and endangered species under the ESA’s consultation requirement rendered the added protections for critical habitats redundant. The FWS’s refusal covered several species without addressing each individually. The Conservation Council of Hawaii, Sierra Club, and Hawaiian Botanical Club (collectively, the conservationists) (plaintiffs) sued and filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the FWS failed to supply a rational basis for its refusal to designate critical habitats.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kay, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.