Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database
Litigation

State of Alaska v. Jewell

About this case

Documents

Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
05/01/2017
Decision
Certiorari denied.
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
Brief filed by federal respondents in opposition.
01/06/2017
Amicus Motion/Brief
Amicus brief filed in support of respondents by environmental groups.
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 Motion/Brief
Amicus brief filed in support of petitioners by 18 states or state agencies.
12/07/2016
Amicus Motion/Brief
Amicus brief filed in support of petitioners by Alaska Federation of Natives.
11/04/2016
Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
Petition for writ of certiorari filed.
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.”

Summary

Challenge to designation of polar bear critical habitat.