Description: Challenge to designation of polar bear critical habitat.
-
State of Alaska v. Jewell
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/01/2017 Order List Download Certiorari denied. Supreme Court Denied Certiorari in Polar Bear Critical Habitat Case. On May 1, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Ninth Circuit’s February 2016 decision upholding the designation of critical habitat for polar bears. The State of Alaska, Alaska native communities, Alaska Oil and Gas Association, and American Petroleum Institute had asked the Court to take up the question of whether the Ninth Circuit’s “exceedingly permissive standard” for critical habitat designation allowed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to designate “huge geographic areas” that failed to meet the Endangered Species Act's criteria for critical habitat. 03/24/2017 Brief Download Brief filed by federal respondents in opposition. 01/06/2017 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed in support of respondents by environmental groups. Environmental Groups Argued Against Certiorari for Polar Bear Critical Habitat Designation. Environmental groups filed a brief opposing petitions seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision upholding the designation of critical habitat for polar bears. The groups defended the designation’s compliance with the Endangered Species Act and said that the petitioners had made policy arguments that misconstrued or ignored facts, including facts related to the need for a large area to be designated. 12/07/2016 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed in support of petitioners by 18 states or state agencies. 12/07/2016 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed in support of petitioners by Alaska Federation of Natives. 11/04/2016 Petition for Writ of Certiorari Download Petition for writ of certiorari filed. Supreme Court Review Sought of Polar Bear Critical Habitat Designation. Two petitions for writ of certiorari were filed in the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the designation of critical habitat for the polar bear. The State of Alaska, Alaska native communities, Alaska Oil and Gas Association, and American Petroleum Institute asked the Court to take up the question of whether the Ninth Circuit’s “exceedingly permissive standard” for critical habitat designation allowed it to designate “huge geographic areas,” much of which allegedly failed to meet statutory criteria, as critical habitat. Alaska Oil and Gas Association and American Petroleum Institute told the Court that the Ninth Circuit’s “exceptionally lax and inexact standard” for the specificity with which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) must make critical habitat designations allowed FWS to impose “sweeping designations” without regard to whether all areas were critical or even helpful to species conservation. Alaska and Alaska native communities told the court that FWS’s “hugely overbroad approach” threatened the viability of “longstanding, Native human communities.” -
Alaska Oil & Gas Association v. Jewell
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 11/04/2016 Petition for Writ of Certiorari Download Petition for writ of certiorari filed. See above. -
Alaska Oil & Gas Association v. Jewell
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/08/2016 Order Download Order issued. Ninth Circuit Denied Rehearing on Polar Bear Critical Habitat Decision. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for rehearing en banc of its ruling upholding the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) designation of critical habitat for polar bears. The court said no judge had requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. 05/06/2016 Petition for Rehearing Download Petition for rehearing en banc filed. Rehearing Sought of Ninth Circuit Decision That Reinstated Polar Bear Critical Habitat Designation. The State of Alaska, Alaska Native organizations, oil and gas industry trade groups, and an Alaska municipality submitted a petition for rehearing en banc to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which in February reinstated the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) designation of critical habitat for polar bears. The petitioners said that rehearing was “urgently needed” because the February opinion conflicted with precedent requiring that the Endangered Species Act’s best scientific data available standard required decisions based on “substantial evidence.” The petitioners also said that the February opinion improperly relied on “post hoc explanations.” The petition contended that the opinion mischaracterized the district court’s decision—which vacated the critical habitat designation—as requiring “current use” by polar bears in order for designation to be warranted. (The Ninth Circuit had said that the FWS had properly taken future climate change into account in designating the critical habitat.) 02/29/2016 Opinion Download Ninth Circuit reversed district court's vacating of designation. Reversing District Court, Ninth Circuit Upheld Critical Habitat Designation for Polar Bears. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) designation of critical habitat for polar bears. The Ninth Circuit reversed a decision by the district court for the District of Alaska that vacated the entire designation. The Ninth Circuit said that the district court had improperly required that FWS identify specific elements within the designated critical habitat areas that were essential to polar bear conservation and currently in use by polar bears. The Ninth Circuit said this requirement was directly counter to the Endangered Species Act’s conservation purposes. The Ninth Circuit instead considered whether the designated areas “contained the constituent elements required for sustained preservation of polar bears,” and found that FWS’s designation of terrestrial denning habitat and barrier island habitat was not arbitrary and capricious. In reaching this conclusion, the Ninth Circuit said that FWS had properly taken future climate change into account in designating the critical habitat. The Ninth Circuit also said that FWS had satisfied its obligations to consider concerns raised by the State of Alaska. -
Alaska Oil & Gas Association v. Salazar
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 08/08/2016 Judgment Download Judgment entered. Alaska Federal Court Entered Final Judgment Dismissing Challenges to Polar Bear Critical Habitat. The federal district court for the District of Alaska entered final judgment dismissing three actions that sought to undo critical habitat designation for polar bears under the Endangered Species Act. The dismissal came several months after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s earlier decision vacating the designation. 05/15/2013 Order Download Motions to alter or amend judgment denied. The district court denied motions to alter or amend its January 2013 judgment. The court rejected arguments that there were errors in its judgment and noted that defendants and defendants-intervenors could not raise new arguments or previously known and available evidence or rehash arguments previously made. The court also ruled that vacating and remanding FWS’s final rule was a proper remedy even though the court found nothing wrong with 96% of the designated area. The decision noted that polar bears “are presently abundant” and “face no immediate or precipitous decline” and cited plaintiffs’ showing that they would be harmed if the critical habitat designation were left in place. The court also indicated that vacating and remanding was appropriate because it would give the Fish and Wildlife Service another opportunity to involve Alaska Native villages, corporations, and the State of Alaska in the designation process. 01/11/2013 Order Download Summary judgment granted to plaintiffs. A federal district court in Alaska overturned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s designation in 2011 of 187,157 square miles of coastal lands, barrier islands, and ice-dotted marine waters as critical habitat for the polar bear, concluding that the area in question was too big to be justified. The court further held that the agency failed to show sufficient evidence that much of the land and barrier islands included in the designation held polar bear dens, included features suitable for dens, or had areas suitable for maternal bears rearing newly emerged cubs. The court held that the agency could not speculate as to the existence of such features. The court remanded the designation to the agency for further studies. 03/01/2011 Complaint Download Complaint filed. An oil and gas association filed a lawsuit against the Interior Department seeking to overturn its December 2010 decision designating 187,157 square miles of area as critical habitat for polar bears, alleging that the designation would impede oil company operations without providing meaningful benefits to polar bears. The complaint alleged that the designation of so much habitat was not supported by science and violated the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. -
State of Alaska v. Salazar
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/09/2011 Complaint Download Complaint filed. -
Arctic Slope Regional Corp. v. Salazar
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/13/2011 Complaint Complaint filed. Eleven Alaska Native organizations and the local government for the Inupiat Eskimo district of northernmost Alaska filed a lawsuit against the Department of Interior challenging the designation of critical habitat for threatened polar bears. The lawsuit alleged that the designation would unfairly restrict Alaska Natives’ traditional cultural activities and important economic development—primarily oil development—while doing nothing to counter climate change that has threatened the species. In November 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated 187,157 square miles as critical habitat for polar bears.