Friday, January 29, 2010

Plaintiffs Appeal Ringling Brothers Decision

On January 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the district court’s standing decision in their case against the Ringling Bros. circus.  ASPCA et al. v. Feld Entertainment, Inc., No. 10-7007 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

Friday, January 22, 2010

Conservation Groups Win Battle Over Everglades Mining Permits

Capping our eight-year legal battle on behalf of the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council over  Corps of Engineers permits authorizing the destruction of thousands of acres of ecologically valuable wetlands immediately adjacent to Everglades National Park, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed a ruling by federal district Judge William Hoeveler that the permits were issued in violation of the Clean Water Act and that the destructive mining – which is also occurring in close proximity to the principal drinking water supply for Miami-Dade county – should not proceed at least until the Corps applies a far more environmentally protective standard.  Download the Court of Appeals’ opinion here.      

Monday, January 11, 2010

Environmentalists Make a Stand for the Northern Spotted Owl

On behalf of Conservation Congress, we sent a 60-day notice of intent to sue two federal agencies for their repeated violations of the Endangered Species Act. Our detailed letter, sent last week, outlines how the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service have repeatedly allowed the take of Northern Spotted Owls and destruction of their critical habitat in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest without considering the overall impact on the Owl’s ability to survive and recover. Download Conservation Congress’s press release here.

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Judge Issues Decision in Ringling Brothers Case

On December 30, 2009, Judge Sullivan issued a decision granting judgment for the defendant in the Ringling Bros. case, ASPCA et al. v. Feld Entertainment, Civ. No. 03-2006 (D.D.C.) on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack Article III standing. Because the Judge found that he lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, he did not address the merits of our claims.