Court Finds That Rule To Protect Endangered Antelopes Must Not Be Delayed

In a long-running litigation saga, a federal district court yesterday denied two requests – both by organizations that represent canned hunting facilities and the sport hunters who frequent them – to temporarily block a rule from going into effect that will protect three highly imperiled species of antelopes that were listed as endangered in 2005.  In 2009, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, the Humane Society of the United States, and Born Free USA, we obtained a judgment requiring the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that these species are not harmed under the Endangered Species Act unless strict permitting requirements are first satisfied to enhance the species’ recovery.  The rule went into effect today, and yesterday’s ruling – in which we participated on behalf of the same organizations as in the earlier lawsuit – effectively means that, at present, members of these species cannot be killed or otherwise harmed unless and until an entity obtains the permits required by law.  The court’s ruling can be viewed here.

Congratulations to Several MGC Alums (and future law clerk)!

This past weekend, former MGC paralegal Michelle Sinnott (a 2L at Vermont Law School) obtained the Best Brief Award at the National Animal Law Moot Court Competition at UCLA.  In the same event's legislative competition, former MGC law clerk Shari Berger Kulanu (a 3L at Drexel Law School) won the Legislative Drafting & Lobbying Competition, and also received an award for Best Bill and Fact Sheet.  At the Pace National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2012 MGC summer law clerk Trevor Smith took home the Best Oralist Award.  Great job!

Lawsuit Prompts U.S. Forest Service To Cancel Wild Horse Roundup

On the hooves of a federal lawsuit we filed in December 2011 challenging various aspects of a wild horse gather decision by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service, the Forest Service has decided to withdraw its participation in the roundup.  The Forest Service’s agreement not to gather horses as part of this decision means that 198 wild horses in the Monte Cristo Wild Horse Territory will be spared from roundups at this time, and will not be subject to gelding, sex-ratio skewing, and other controversial population control techniques that would otherwise have been implemented there.

Faced With Notice Of ESA Violations, FWS Agrees To Reconsider Biological Opinion for Shaffer Mountain Wind Project

On November 3, 2011, we submitted a detailed notice letter on behalf of several conservation groups pointing out the serious scientific and legal errors with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2011 Biological Opinion to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which would have allowed construction and operation of an industrial wind farm in the midst of a critical maternity colony of endangered Indiana bats.  In issuing its opinion, the Service ignored the views of the nation’s leading bat biologists who pressed the Service to consider alternatives to placing a project in this sensitive location, and also applied faulty population models in an effort to greenlight this project that will not only kill highly imperiled Indiana bats, but also golden eagles and migratory birds.  In light of our letter, the Service recently announced that it will reinitiate ESA consultation to consider new evidence before moving forward with a revised Biological Opinion.  In turn, the Corps has agreed to hold its decisionmaking in abeyance, pending the Service’s revised Biological Opinion.  Here are our notice letter, the FWS’s reinitiation letter, and the Corps’ reinitiation letter.

D.C. Circuit Hears Oral Argument on Flying Squirrel Appeal

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on whether the West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel should remain protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The argument followed briefing on the government’s appeal of our victory on behalf of Friends of Blackwater and other conservation groups which restored ESA protections for the species. On appeal, the issue was whether the Fish and Wildlife Service was free to delist the squirrel without fulfilling the delisting/ recovery criteria the agency itself designated in squirrel’s recovery plan, or providing the public notice and an opportunity to comment on whatever new criteria the agency adopts.

On behalf of the plaintiffs, Jessica Almy argued that Congress specifically required development and implementation of delisting/ recovery criteria in species’ recovery plans to guide the agency’s determination of whether recovery has been achieved and the species should be delisted. Here, because the agency jettisoned the criteria in favor of less protective standards without allowing public notice and comment, the delisting was unlawful and the district court opinion should be affirmed. Read our brief here.

Full ESA Protections Restored for Three Endangered Antelope Species

Today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a final rule, which vindicated our clients’ 2009 victory in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that successfully overturned the Service’s unlawful attempt to grant blanket authorization to exotic wildlife ranches to breed and allow the canned hunting of three highly imperiled antelope species. The 2009 ruling found the Service’s action unlawful under the plain language of the Endangered Species Act, and today’s rule requires canned hunting operations to submit case-by-case permit applications to the Service to document whether and how their operations enhance the survival of the species before such entities can allow the endangered antelopes to be killed for profit. Such applications will be made available to the public for comment. The final rule can be found here.

Government Caves In FOIA Litigation and Grants Fee Waiver to Center for Auto Safety

Today, after the Department of Treasury completely capitulated on the issue, the court approved a voluntary stipulation that the government will grant the Center for Auto Safety a complete waiver of all fees associated with its request for electronic emails that will shed light on why the government allowed the auto industry to escape all liability for defective cars after the industry bailout in 2009. We had filed suit on behalf of the Center – the nation’s oldest and most prominent auto safety organization – after the Department tried to charge exorbitant fees in connection with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for these records.

The Center, the driving force behind the widespread adoption of lemon laws and major recalls of defective cars, seeks government email correspondence that would shed light on the government-led, taxpayer-financed restructuring of the two automotive giants, Chrysler and GM, which left personal injury victims without any recourse for injuries resulting from defective automobiles against the "New Chrysler" and "New GM." Rather than simply providing the Center with a disc containing the electronic documents or granting the Center a "public interest" waiver of duplication fees as provided by FOIA, the government denied access to the Center by assessing photocopying fees in excess of $33,000 for paper copies of the records. We filed a brief in October that challenged the government's position as creating an unlawful barrier to access under FOIA.

Today’s court order approves a voluntary stipulation between the parties that provides that the government has waived all fees in connection with the request and sets a schedule for the production of records.