Center for Biological Diversity v. Zinke

• Main Author: Hickey, Ryan
• Format: Text
• Language: unknown
• Published: ScholarWorks at University of Montana 2018
• Subjects: Center for Biological Diversity; CBD; Ryan Zinke; Department of the Interior; DOI; Secretary of the Interior; Endangered Species Act; ESA; Fish and Wildlife Service; FWS; arctic grayling; grayling; fluvial arctic grayling; fluvial grayling; adfluvial arctic grayling; adfluvial grayling; listing; endangered; threatened; listing decision; administrative law; judicial review; District of Montana; Ninth Circuit; environmental law; animal law; freshwater fish; cold water fish; arbitrary and capricious; reverse and remand; Western Watersheds Project; Biodiversity Legal Foundation; range; Chevron; Chevron deference; climate change; habitat loss; habitat destruction; distinct population segments; Montana; Big Hole River; Ruby River; Agriculture Law; Cultural Heritage Law; Energy and Utilities Law; Indigenous; Indian; Arctic; Arctic grayling; Climate change
• Online Access: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/plrlr/vol0/iss8/33; https://scholarworks.umt.edu/context/plrlr/article/1598/viewcontent/auto_convert.pdf

The oft-cited “arbitrary and capricious” standard revived the Center for Biological Diversity’s most recent legal challenge in its decades-long quest to see arctic grayling listed under the Endangered Species Act. While this Ninth Circuit decision did not grant grayling ESA protections, it did require the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to reconsider its 2014 finding that listing grayling as threatened or endangered was unwarranted. In doing so, the court found “range,” as used in the ESA, vague while endorsing the FWS’s 2014 clarification of that term. Finally, this holding identified specific shortcomings of the challenged FWS finding, highlighting how agency decision making can cross from acceptable to arbitrary.