WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

The federal district court for the Central District of California set aside the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) 2023 finding that Joshua trees did not warrant listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The court found, among other things, that the FWS was arbitrary and capricious because it did not explain why it did not use current trends and standards regarding greenhouse gas emissions as the basis for its definition of “foreseeable future,” which for this review was defined as midcentury (2040–2069) because the FWS found that after that time, it could not make reliable projections regarding the Joshua trees’ responses to threats and stressors. The court also found that the FWS failed to explain its change in policy from using the end of the century as the foreseeable future timeframe in a 2019 finding (which the court previously set aside) and using a midcentury timeframe in the 2023 finding. In addition, the court found that the FWS did not use the best available data to make decisions regarding climate change and that its evaluation of cumulative threats was arbitrary and capricious. In addition, the court found problems with the FWS’s determination regarding the “significant portion” of the Joshua trees’ range. The court also declined to adopt a D.C. Circuit rule that courts “may not give species the benefit of the doubt when faced with uncertainty”; the court said it would instead abide by Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent “requiring that courts ensure agencies use the best science available but allowing courts to honor Congress’s intent by giving species the benefit of the doubt.” The court remanded to the FWS for reconsideration.

WildEarth Guardians challenged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) 2023 determination not to list two species of Joshua tree under the Endangered Species Act. In WildEarth Guardians’ previous challenge to the FWS’s 2019 determination not to list the Joshua tree, the federal district court for the Central District of California held that the 2019 determination was arbitrary and capricious, including because the FWS gave inadequate consideration to climate change. In the new lawsuit, WildEarth Guardians alleged that the FWS “repeated many of the same mistakes” that it made in the 2019 decision. The complaint asserted that the FWS’s determination was arbitrary and capricious, including because it “improperly dismissed, misinterpreted and misapplied the best available science on threats from climate change, fire, habitat loss and degradation and cumulative threats” and “failed to sufficiently analyze the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address the primary threats to Joshua tree, particularly climate change.” In addition, WildEarth Guardians contended that the FWS arbitrarily and capriciously found that Joshua trees are not threatened throughout a significant portion of their range, failed to use best available science regarding climate change impacts to Joshua trees, and arbitrarily defined “foreseeable future” to extend only 17 to 47 years from the present when current and future threats, including climate change threats, could be predicted until at least 2099.