Date Filed: January 12, 2022
Original Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Case Status: Victory
Following CAF’s victory in General Land Office v. Dep’t of Interior, the court directed the Fish and Wildlife Service to reconsider TPPF’s petition to delist the golden-cheeked warbler. The Fish and Wildlife Service denied TPPF’s petition a second time. In doing so, it applied the same improperly heightened standard that the Fifth Circuit rejected in the previous case.
CAF again filed suit on behalf of the General Land Office of Texas (GLO) to delist the warbler. On a motion for summary judgment, the district court agreed that the Fish and Wildlife Service had again applied the improper standard to deny TPPF’s delisting petition. The court ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to review TPPF’s petition a third time. After that third review, the Fish and Wildlife Service agreed that TPPF’s petition presented substantial scientific information concerning the warbler, and that it would be initiating an in-depth review of the warbler’s Endangered Species Act status. The Fish and Wildlife Service also announced it will recommend the warbler be downlisted from an “endangered” to a “threatened” species.
While this is a step in the right direction, listing as a threatened species still imposes costly compliance and mitigation measures. The Fish and Wildlife Service is presently conducting a 12-month review to determine the warbler’s continued ESA listing. During this period, CAF has made two regulatory filings urging the Fish and Wildlife Service to completely delist the warbler.
Case Documents:
Order Transferring Case to Austin Division
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Federal Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant Intervenor’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Cross Motion for Summary Judgment
Federal Defendants’ Reply in Support of Cross Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant Intervenor’s Reply in Support of Cross Motion for Summary Judgment
Opinion & Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment