Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

American Stewards of Liberty v. Department of the Interior

American Stewards of Liberty v. Department of Interior 

19-50321United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (5th Cir.), United States Federal Courts6 entries
Filing Date
Document
Type
07/14/2020
Brief filed by Cato Institute et al. as amici curiae in support of plaintiff-appellants and rehearing en banc.
Amicus Motion/Brief
05/29/2020
Decision
08/12/2019
Sur-reply filed by appellants in opposition to appellees' motion to dismiss.
Reply
07/26/2019
Reply filed by federal appellees in support of their motion to dismiss appeal.
Reply

American Stewards of Liberty v. Department of the Interior 

1:15-cv-1174United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (W.D. Tex.)1 entry
Filing Date
Document
Type
03/28/2019
2017 finding on delisting petition vacated and remanded for further consideration.
The federal district court for the Western District of Texas found that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it denied a petition to remove the bone cave harvestman—“an elusive spider known to inhabit only Travis and Williamson Counties, Texas”—from the list of endangered species. The court found that the FWS violated its own regulations by requiring that the petition “essentially present conclusive evidence about the harvestman’s population trends—more evidence than the Service admits is available or attainable.” The FWS had cited the absence of population data, including the absence of “trend analysis to indicate that this species can withstand the threats associated with development or climate change over the long term,” as grounds for its conclusion that the petition did not present sufficient information to demonstrate that delisting might be warranted. The court concluded that the FWS did not deny the petition based on the best available data, as required by the Endangered Species Act and the FWS regulations, because it denied the petition based on the absence of “admittedly unavailable” evidence. The court concluded that the petition met the threshold for a finding that delisting may be warranted and remanded to the FWS for further consideration.
Decision