Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • D
  • Defenders of Wildlife v. JewellDefenders of Wildlife v. Jewell
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Defenders of Wildlife v. Jewell

United States District Court for the District of Columbia
70 F. Supp. 3d 183 (D.D.C. 2014)


The Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1533, directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (defendant) to list species as endangered by relying on the best available scientific data and only after taking into account any efforts that state governments were making to protect those species. FWS instituted a Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE). The PECE permitted FWS to take into account states’ efforts not yet implemented and not yet effective, as long as FWS determined that the efforts were sufficiently certain of being implemented and effective. The sand-dune lizard’s habitat was within the Permian Basin in New Mexico and Texas, one of the biggest mineral-producing regions in the country. This mineral production began to harm the lizard’s habitat. In December 2010, FWS issued a proposed rule listing the lizard as endangered. In June 2012, FWS withdrew the proposed rule, stating that the environmental threats to the lizard were not as significant as initially thought. FWS relied on conservation efforts of New Mexico (initiated in 2008), Texas (initiated in February 2012), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (initiated in 2008) that together covered 89 percent of the lizard’s habitat. These conservation efforts limited mineral development to reduce fragmentation of the lizard’s habitat, and encouraged the restoration of degraded habitat and the reconnection of fragmented habitat. FWS concluded that due to these conservation efforts, there was a high level of certainty that the lizard’s habitat would not further degrade and would actually improve in some areas. The Defenders of Wildlife (DOW) (plaintiff) brought suit against FWS, challenging the decision to withdraw the proposed rule and arguing that the decision was not the product of the best available data, but of political pressure. All parties moved for summary judgment.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Contreras, 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 450,000 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 450,000 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