Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding its 2020 rule downlisting the American Burying Beetle from endangered to threatened status under the Endangered Species Act. The court held that the agency's determination that the species faces low near-term extinction risk but is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future was supported by the administrative record and reasonably explained. Additionally, the court ruled that the appellant lacked Article III standing to challenge the specific Section 4(d) protective regulations, though it successfully established standing to challenge the downlisting itself.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Service's downlisting rule is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise contrary to the Endangered Species Act.
- Whether the Center has Article III standing to challenge the Service's Section 4(d) rule.
Holdings
- The downlisting rule is not arbitrary or capricious and is consistent with the statutory definitions of "threatened" and "endangered"; the district court's judgment is affirmed.
- The Center lacks standing to challenge the Section 4(d) rule on appeal.
Key quotations
“The Service concluded that the Beetle “is not currently in danger of extinction as it faces relatively low near‑term risk of extinction.”” (at 66)
“The Center has not established standing on appeal to challenge the Section 4(d) Rule.” (at 71–82)
Factual background
The Fish and Wildlife Service downlisted the American Burying Beetle from endangered to threatened in 2020 based on a Species Status Assessment that found the species faced low near‑term risk of extinction but was likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. The Center challenged both the downlisting and the accompanying Section 4(d) protections.
Procedural history
The district court granted summary judgment for the Service, holding that the downlisting rule was supported by the record and that the Center lacked standing to challenge the Section 4(d) rule. The Center appealed.