Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • S
  • Seattle Audubon Society v. EvansSeattle Audubon Society v. Evans
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Seattle Audubon Society v. Evans

United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
771 F. Supp. 1081 (1991)


In early 1989, the Seattle Audubon Society (SAS) (plaintiff) sued the United States Forest Service (USFS) (defendant), challenging the USFS’s adoption of standards and guidelines for managing northern-spotted-owl (owl) habitat in national forests. In April 1989, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced that the owl would be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq. The district court issued a stay to allow the FWS and the USFS to consult. However, after the stay, the USFS did not adopt promised temporary guidelines to protect the owl. During this time, Congress enacted section 318 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, which directed the USFS to prepare a new plan for the owl. The USFS failed to prepare the plan. In June 1990, the FWS listed the owl as threatened under the ESA. In December 1990, the district court found that the FWS had violated the ESA by failing to designate the owl’s critical habitat. The district court also enjoined the USFS from proceeding with timber sales, finding that the USFS had violated the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600 et seq., by failing to create standards or guidelines for owl viability. In March 1991, the district court entered summary judgment against the USFS, finding that the USFS’s proposal to log owl habitat in national forests violated the NFMA. The district court also found that the USFS’s duties under the NFMA and ESA were concurrent. SAS moved for a permanent injunction to prohibit the sale of logging rights in owl habitat until the USFS complied with the NFMA by adopting standards and guidelines to ensure the owl’s viability.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Dwyer, 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