Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a district court’s order that vacated 2019 amendments to the Endangered Species Act regulations, including provisions that plaintiffs alleged would limit consideration of the effects of climate change and constrain designation of critical habitat for species whose current habitat is threatened by climate change. The Ninth Circuit stated that it was “apparent” that the district court “clearly erred” by vacating the amendments without ruling on their legal validity.

The plaintiffs, who had requested vacatur, asked the court to amend or alter the judgment to resolve on the merits the issue of whether the FWS and NMFS failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when they promulgated the 2019 regulations. The plaintiffs said a ruling that the FWS and NMFS violated NEPA would make vacatur the standard remedy and ensure that the regulations were not reinstated, which would be an “unjust result.”

Three sets of intervenors appealed: private landowner intervenors, 13 states led by Alabama, and industry intervenors including the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Forest Resource Council, and American Petroleum Institute. Intervenors also moved for stay of the vacatur, arguing that the Supreme Court’s April 2022 order staying a district court’s vacatur of another regulation (concerning state water quality certifications under the Clean Water Act) called the district court’s authority to vacate the regulations with out reaching the merits into question.

The plaintiffs, who had requested vacatur, asked the court to amend or alter the judgment to resolve on the merits the issue of whether the FWS and NMFS failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when they promulgated the 2019 regulations. The plaintiffs said a ruling that the FWS and NMFS violated NEPA would make vacatur the standard remedy and ensure that the regulations were not reinstated, which would be an “unjust result.”

The federal district court for the Northern District of California amended its order that vacated and remanded 2019 amendments to the Endangered Species Act regulations, which included provisions that plaintiffs alleged would limit consideration of the effects of climate change and constrain designation of critical habitat for species whose current habitat is threatened by climate change. Citing a Ninth Circuit order that said the district court had “clearly erred” in its earlier pre-merits vacatur of the rules (as well as the 2022 Supreme Court decision on which the Ninth Circuit relied), the district court concluded that it could not vacate the 2019 rules without fully adjudicating the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.