Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
130 F. Supp. 2d 121 (2001)
- Written by Erin Enser, JD
Facts
Defenders of Wildlife (the defenders) (plaintiff) sued the Department of the Interior (defendant), claiming that the recovery plan of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for endangered Sonoran pronghorn (the pronghorn) did not comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) because the plan did not (1) describe site-specific management actions to conserve the species; (2) establish objective, measurable criteria for delisting the species (i.e., for determining the species was no longer endangered or threatened); or (3) provide estimates of the time required to achieve recovery and delisting. The plan included four categories of recovery: establishing and monitoring new herds; continued monitoring of the existing population; verification of the species’ taxonomic status; and a recovery goal of 300 adults, which would have changed the species from endangered to threatened. Each category included a list of specific tasks. The FWS provided an implementation schedule with estimated time frames for five of 23 specific tasks. The plan was to be reviewed annually and every five years. The defenders argued that the site-specific goals lacked specificity and that the FWS failed to plan for fully delisting the species and failed to establish estimated time frames as required under the ESA.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Huvelle, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.