From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
Defenders of Wildlife v. Hall
United States District Court for the District of Montana
565 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (2008)
The Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf was listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act in 1974. In 1987, the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (the service) (defendant) developed a recovery plan for these wolves in the Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming area. This plan used wolf numbers as the criteria for determining when the wolves were no longer endangered. In 1994, the service conducted a study and used the results to revise the criteria. The new criteria required higher wolf numbers and genetic mixing of the three core wolf populations before the species would be considered out of danger. Several years later, the service conducted another evaluation and affirmed the criteria for considering the wolf no longer endangered. For eight years, the wolf populations hit the listed numbers, but there was no evidence that the different core populations were mixing genetically. The service decided that the genetic-intermixing requirement was not truly necessary and began the process of taking the wolves off the endangered-species list, including getting plans from the three states for managing the wolves once they were delisted. Montana’s and Idaho’s plans seemed to be compatible with the continued survival of the species in those states. However, among other issues, Wyoming’s plan did not commit to maintaining any minimum number of wolves and allowed people to kill wolves if they believed the wolf was damaging property in any way. This plan was potentially incompatible with long-term survival of the gray wolf species in Wyoming. Regardless, the service accepted the plans and removed the gray wolf from the endangered-species list. Defenders of Wildlife and others (plaintiffs) sued the service, challenging its decision to delist the gray wolf and asking for a preliminary injunction putting the wolves back on the endangered-species list while the lawsuit was pending.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Molloy, J.)
What to do next…
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 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
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.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 984 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.