Tucson Herpetological Society v. Salazar
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
566 F.3d 870 (2009)
- Written by Abby Keenan, JD
Facts
In 1993 the secretary of the United States Department of Interior (the secretary) (defendant) proposed listing the flat-tailed horned lizard (the lizard) as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act due to manmade developments that destroyed an estimated one-fifth of the lizard’s range. In 1997 the secretary issued a final determination withdrawing the proposed listing, relying on both a multistate and a federal conservation agreement designed to maintain the population and the lack of data showing population declines. The 1997 withdrawal was challenged in two rounds of litigation, in which the Ninth Circuit twice found that the secretary and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service had failed to properly analyze whether the threatened and lost portion of the lizard’s range was significant under the Endangered Species Act. In 2006, after the second remand from the Ninth Circuit, the secretary again withdrew the proposed listing. Although acknowledging that the existing population studies were limited and inconclusive, the secretary found that the lost range was not significant. The Tucson Herpetological Society (plaintiff) challenged the withdrawal in the district court, and the district court granted summary judgment for the secretary. The Tucson Herpetological Society appealed the granting of summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tashima, J.)
Dissent (Noonan, 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.