State of Alaska v. Lubchenco

In the 1990s, the population of beluga whales in Cook Inlet, a glacial fjord in Alaska, decreased substantially, largely due to excessive subsistence hunting by native Alaskans. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (defendant) designated the Cook Inlet belugas as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which allowed NMFS to regulate subsistence hunting. Because NMFS believed that excessive subsistence hunting was the primary cause of the belugas’ population decline, the NMFS determined that listing the belugas as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was unwarranted at that time. Between 2000 and 2006, the Cook Inlet beluga population continued to decline. The NMFS conducted an extensive, peer-reviewed study that determined the Cook Inlet belugas faced a substantial risk of extinction within the next 300 years because of (1) the residual effects of subsistence hunting; (2) municipal, industrial, and recreational development in Cook Inlet; and (3) killer whale predation. The Cook Inlet belugas were eligible for ESA protections as a distinct population segment (DPS), or subpopulation, even though beluga populations elsewhere in the world were thriving. After a public comment period, the NMFS listed the Cook Inlet belugas as endangered under the ESA. The State of Alaska (plaintiff) moved to invalidate the listing under the ESA’s citizen-suit provision, arguing that (a) the listing was arbitrary because it did not consider the relevant statutory factors; and (b) nothing significant had changed since the NMFS’s determination in 2000 that ESA listing was unwarranted.