Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 35,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service | 139 S. Ct. 361 (2018)
In Weyerhaeuser Company versus United States Fish and Wildlife Service, we’ll see whether an agency’s decision to protect an endangered frog’s habitat was subject to judicial review.
Historically, the dusky gopher frog lived throughout Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Over time, ninety-eight percent of the frog’s habitat was lost to agriculture and development. By two thousand one, there were only one hundred dusky gopher frogs left in the wild, so the Fish and Wildlife Service listed the frog as an endangered species on behalf of the secretary of the Interior.
When the secretary lists a species as endangered, the secretary must also designate the critical habitat of the endangered species. Under the Endangered Species Act, the secretary must consider the economic impact and other relevant impacts of designating critical habitat. The secretary may exclude areas from the critical-habitat designation if the secretary determines that the benefit of excluding land outweighs the benefit of designating the habitat.
In twenty ten, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed the critical-habitat designation for the dusky gopher frog, which included a fifteen-hundred acre site in Saint Tammany Parish, Louisiana, referred to as Unit One. Dusky gopher frogs hadn’t been seen on the site since nineteen sixty-five, and in its current state, Unit One didn’t meet the frogs’ specific habitat requirements. Weyerhaeuser, a timber company, owned part of Unit One and leased the remaining land in Unit One to a group of landowners. Once land is designated as critical habitat, the Fish and Wildlife Service would have to be consulted before development permits could be issued, and the service could potentially bar any future development on the land.
Weyerhaeuser and the landowners, referred to collectively as Weyerhaeuser, filed a lawsuit to vacate the service’s decision to designate Unit One as critical habitat. The district court upheld the service’s designation. Weyerhaeuser appealed, but the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s holding. The court of appeals held that the service’s decision to designate Unit One as critical habitat was a matter committed to agency discretion. Therefore, the service’s decision was unreviewable. Weyerhaeuser appealed again. The United States Supreme Court granted cert.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
