Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland

During the final weeks of the Biden administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) reached agreements that set schedules for review of the status of species to determine whether listing them as endangered or threatened is warranted. The plaintiffs in these cases identified climate change as one of the threats facing these species. In a lawsuit that originally sought to compel FWS to complete listing and critical habitat actions for 274 species, Center for Biological Diversity and FWS reached a settlement agreement pursuant to which FWS will submit 12-month findings regarding whether listing is warranted for 76 species to the Federal Register by the end of Fiscal Year 2029 in accordance with a schedule that requires a certain number of findings each year. The 76 species are those that remain after previous settlements, listing and critical habitat actions, and withdrawn petitions.

The federal district court for the District of Columbia approved a stipulated settlement agreement that resolved Center for Biological Diversity’s claims with respect to 55 species that were the subject of a 2020 lawsuit that sought to compel Endangered Species Act actions for a total of 274 species. For 33 species, the agreement set a schedule for 12-month findings as to whether listing as endangered or threatened was warranted. For 22 species (18 for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had completed listing and critical habitat actions and four for which listing petitions had been withdrawn), plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice.

In a lawsuit brought by Center for Biological Diversity asserting that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to make listing determinations or critical habitat designations, including for climate change-threatened species, the federal district court for the District of Columbia granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for partial dismissal. The court dismissed claims related to six species either because the claims were moot due to the FWS taking final action, because listing petitions had been withdrawn, or because the plaintiff did not comply with the Endangered Species Act’s notice requirements. The court rejected the argument that claims asserting a failure to make 12-month findings for 192 species were time-barred.