Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
852 F.2d 1106 (1984)
- Written by Erin Enser, JD
Facts
The Palila (plaintiff) is a member of the Hawaiian honeycreeper family (a family of birds) that was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The Palila depends on mamane trees for survival. In the 1960s, the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (the department) (defendant) released mouflon sheep for sport hunting. The mouflon sheep fed on the mamane trees within the Palila’s critical habitat, and the number of Palila in the wild declined. The Sierra Club, Audubon Society, and others (plaintiffs) sued the department in federal district court on behalf of the Palila, arguing that the presence of the mouflon sheep in the Palila’s critical habitat constituted harm to the Palila and was an unlawful taking of the Palila under the Endangered Species Act. The department argued that harm, as described in the regulations, meant only direct physical harm and did not extend to indirect harm such as habitat destruction. The district court found that the continued presence of the sheep harmed the Palila because it resulted in habitat destruction that could result in the Palila’s ultimate extinction. The department appealed the decision of the district court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (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. 46,400 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.
