CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY v. DEBRA ANNE HAALAND; STATE OF WYOMING; STATE OF IDAHO; WYOMING STOCK GROWERS ASSOCIATION; WYOMING FARM BUREAU FEDERATION; UTAH FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has denied the Center for Biological Diversity’s (CBD) request for en banc reconsideration of a panel ruling that rejected their push for the federal government to expand territory and help recover grizzly bears. Four years ago, CBD challenged the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's (FWS) decision to reject its petition for rulemaking to expand the bears’ habitat in the lower forty-eight states and revise the agency’s scientific approach to species recovery. In 2020, a Montana federal judge ruled in favor of the FWS, finding that a recovery plan is not final agency rule that can be petitioned under the Administrative Procedure Act. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the lower court but ultimately affirmed the ruling, finding that while the recovery plan was a final rule subject to petition, the agency’s denial of the petition was not a final agency action that the appeals court was able to review.
[To accompany Case Law Update "Ninth Circuit Declines Request for En Banc Reconsideration of Grizzly Bear Ruling” from Brooks Animal Law Digest Issue No. 190]