Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Department of the Interior
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
113 F.3d 1121 (1997)
- Written by Sarah Hoffman, JD
Facts
In 1993, the gnatcatcher, a songbird unique to coastal southern California and northern Baja California, was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (the act) by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (the service) (defendant). The service found that the loss of the gnatcatcher’s habitat, a specific type of coastal sage scrub, would pose a significant threat to the survival of the gnatcatcher. However, the service declined to designate the coastal sage scrub as a critical habitat on the grounds that the gnatcatcher would not benefit from the habitat designation for two reasons: (1) identifying the habitats would increase the likelihood that the habitats would be deliberately destroyed by landowners; and (2) the habitats were mostly found on private lands, and the act’s requirement that any agencies consult with the secretary of the interior (defendant) before taking action that might harm a critical habitat did not apply on private land. The service therefore claimed that designation of a critical habitat was not required under the act. Following litigation over the service’s decision not to give the gnatcatcher's habitat a critical-habitat designation, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pregerson, J.)
Dissent (O’Scannlain, 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.
