Description: Challenge to final rules under the Endangered Species Act defining "habitat" and revising the regulations for designating critical habitat.
California v. Haaland
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 01/03/2022 Reply Download Federal defendants filed reply in support of motion for voluntary remand. 12/27/2021 Opposition Download Private landowner intervenors filed partial opposition to motion for voluntary remand. 12/27/2021 Response Download Industry defendant-intervenors filed response to motion for voluntary remand. 12/27/2021 Response Download State intervenors filed response to motion for voluntary remand without vacatur. 12/23/2021 Opposition Download Plaintiffs filed joint opposition to motion for voluntary remand without vacatur. 12/10/2021 Motion Download Federal defendants filed motion for voluntary remand and response to plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment. 09/20/2021 Order Download Court so-ordered stipulation to continue stay of proceedings until July 15, 2022. 08/02/2021 Order Order issued administratively terminating motions for summary judgment. 04/19/2021 Order Download Stipulation to continue stay for 60 days so-ordered. 01/19/2021 Complaint Download Complaint filed. States and Local Governments Alleged Definition of “Habitat” Would Constrain Endangered Species Act Responses to Climate Change. States and New York City filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Northern District of California challenging two regulations adopted under the Endangered Species Act in December 2020. The plaintiffs asserted that the first rule, which defines the statutory term “habitat,” “fails to account for species’ need to expand their current ranges or to migrate to currently unoccupied habitat in response to existential threats such as climate change and habitat destruction to ensure species recovery and survival as mandated by the [Endangered Species Act].” The plaintiffs asserted that the process established by the second rule, the “Habitat Exclusion Rule,” would exclude more areas from critical habitat designation and protection under the Endangered Species Act. The states alleged that the rules violated the Endangered Species Act, NEPA, and the Administrative Procedure Act.