Term: 2018
Docket: 17-71
Weyerhaeuser Company v. U.s. Fish And Wildlife Service
- Pro
17-71 WEYERHAUSER COMPANY V. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DECISION BELOW: 827 F.3d 452 CERT. GRANTED 1/22/2018 QUESTION PRESENTED: Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act to conserve "ecosystems upon which endangered species***depend." 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b). To that end, the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to "designate any habitat of such species which is then considered to be critical habitat." Id. § 1533(a)(3)(A). "Critical habitat" may include areas "occupied by the species," as well as "areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species" that are determined to be "essential for the conservation of the species." Id. § 1532(5)(A). The Fish and Wildlife Service designated as critical habitat of the endangered dusky gopher frog a 1500- acre tract of private land that concededly contains no dusky gopher frogs and cannot provide habitat for them absent a radical change in land use because it lacks features necessary for their survival. The Service concluded that this designation could cost $34 million in lost development value of the tract. But it found that this cost is not disproportionate to "biological" benefits of designation and so refused to exclude the tract from designation under 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(2). A divided Fifth Circuit panel upheld the designation. The questions presented, which six judges of the court of appeals and fifteen States urged warrant further review because of their great importance, are: 1. Whether the Endangered Species Act prohibits designation of private land as unoccupied critical habitat that is neither habitat nor essential to species conservation. 2. Whether an agency decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat because of the economic impact of designation is subject to judicial review. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 14-31008
In the case of Weyerhaeuser Company v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Weyerhaeuser, a timber company that challenged the designation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of its land as critical habitat for an endangered frog species - dusky gopher frog - even though it was not currently inhabited by them. The FWS had argued that with modifications to its landscape, this area could potentially support a population of these frogs in future; however, such changes would be costly and time-consuming for Weyerhaeuser who intended to use this land for timber operations. The court held that only areas where species can survive should be designated as critical habitats under Endangered Species Act (ESA), thus rejecting FWS's interpretation which included potential habitats too within ESA’s purview. Furthermore, they also stated that decisions made under ESA are reviewable by courts if there is any alleged abuse or overreach on part of agencies like FWS.
In the dissenting opinion for Weyerhaeuser Company v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority's decision to remand the case back to a lower court was unnecessary because it was clear that critical habitat must be habitable under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). She contended that while unoccupied areas can be designated as critical habitats if they contain essential features for conservation, this doesn't mean any area could qualify simply by being capable of modification into suitable habitat. The ESA requires an existing ability or potential capability of supporting a sustainable population of endangered species in order for an area to qualify as "critical habitat". Therefore, she disagreed with sending back the case on grounds of ambiguity over whether certain lands were indeed crucial habitats when there is no such ambiguity in law itself.
