The Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations promulgated by the Trump administration (Trump ESA Rules) were challenged by environmental groups. While that challenge was pending, the Biden administration announced that those regulations would be revised. On July 5, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California vacated the Trump ESA regulations, not on the merits of the regulations but because they are in the process of being rewritten. This decision disregards the Biden administration’s request that the regulations remain in effect to preserve consistency and order during the revision process. Instead, the pre-Trump regulations (which were issued in the mid-1980s) have been reinstated and are now in effect until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, the Services) finalize new regulations.

The Trump ESA Rules included:

  1. The “Listing Rule” that modified how the Services add, remove, and reclassify endangered or threatened species and the criteria for designating listed species’ critical habitat;
  2. The “Blanket Rule Repeal,” which eliminated the USFWS’ former policy of automatically extending to threatened species the protections against “take” that Section 9 automatically affords to endangered species; and
  3. The “Interagency Consultation Rule” that changed how the Services work with federal agencies to prevent proposed agency actions that could harm listed species or their critical habitat.

The Trump ESA Rules were challenged by environmental groups and other parties, alleging that the Services violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in implementing the rules.

On January 19, 2021, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. The following day, however, President Biden signed Executive Order 13990, which directed the Services to evaluate and, where appropriate, revise or rescind regulations that had been enacted during the previous four years. Pursuant to that executive order, the Services announced their intention to revise the Listing Rule and Interagency Cooperation Rule and rescind the Blanket 4(d) Rule Repeal and re-instate protections for threatened species. Following these announcements, the parties agreed to a stay of the ongoing litigation.

However, in October 2021, the court lifted the stay, and the plaintiffs re-noticed their motions for summary judgement. In response, the Services filed a motion to remand the rules without vacatur, and plaintiffs opposed, asking that the court remand with vacatur or deny the Services’ motion altogether so the matter can be adjudicated on the merits. According to the court, because no party alleged that the Services’ request for remand was frivolous or in bad faith, the court considered the extent to which it may vacate the Trump ESA Rules without fully adjudicating the merits of plaintiffs’ claims.

In considering whether to vacate agency action concurrently with remand, the court explained that it considers two factors: the seriousness of the agency’s errors and “the disruptive consequences of an interim change that may itself be changed.” The court concluded that vacating the Trump ESA Rules would not be “disruptive” as it would not cause confusion among the public, other agencies, and stakeholders, or impede the efficiency of ESA implementation by abruptly altering the applicable regulatory framework and creating uncertainty about which standards to apply. Moreover, the court considered that the Services’ announcements that they are in the process of proposing new ESA rules.

An appeal to the Ninth Circuit is expected to be filed by the several states and industry groups that participated in the District Court proceeding. The District Court recently relied on a similar analysis to vacate and remand the Trump-era Clean Water Act Section 401 Rule (Certification Rule). However, on April 6, the Supreme Court (without providing a fulsome opinion for further analysis) overturned the District Court’s vacatur of the Certification Rule, pending the outcome of the litigation in the Ninth Circuit. The effect of the Supreme Court’s decision reinstated the Certification Rule, at least temporarily.

While it is unclear whether the fate of the 2019 ESA Rules will follow a similar path as the Certification Rule, it serves as a recent example of how the Supreme Court may disfavor the District Court’s approach of overturning fully promulgated rules without first addressing the merits.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Andrea Wortzel Andrea Wortzel

Andrea focuses her practice on water quantity and water quality issues, including water rights, water supply planning, and water withdrawal permitting, as well as discharge permitting and TMDL development and implementation. She coordinates a growing and influential stakeholder group focused on water supply…

Andrea focuses her practice on water quantity and water quality issues, including water rights, water supply planning, and water withdrawal permitting, as well as discharge permitting and TMDL development and implementation. She coordinates a growing and influential stakeholder group focused on water supply issues in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Beyond her water practice, Andrea advises clients on endangered species issues, landfill permitting and compliance, waste permitting, environmental compliance and audit programs and environmental enforcement defense. Andrea also regularly counsels clients on legislative and regulatory strategies to promote her clients’ objectives.

Photo of Morgan Gerard Morgan Gerard

Morgan’s practice focuses on advising public and private sector clients on environmental and energy regulatory compliance, including permitting, rulemaking, and enforcement actions. She has focused on following the emerging energy trends and the associated environmental issues that arise in strengthening grid resilience and…

Morgan’s practice focuses on advising public and private sector clients on environmental and energy regulatory compliance, including permitting, rulemaking, and enforcement actions. She has focused on following the emerging energy trends and the associated environmental issues that arise in strengthening grid resilience and modernizing the energy system. Morgan has counseled clients ranging from those engaging in the hydropower licensing and relicensing process to electric utilities, wholesale generators, and distributed energy manufacturers, including electric vehicle manufacturers, solar installers and energy storage providers. She also counsels clients on matters arising under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Power Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, and similar state and local regulatory schemes.

Photo of Viktoriia De Las Casas Viktoriia De Las Casas

Viktoriia is an environmental and natural resources attorney with experience in regulatory compliance, permitting, due diligence, enforcement, and litigation matters. She focuses her practice on advising clients on all aspects of compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Bald and Golden Eagle…

Viktoriia is an environmental and natural resources attorney with experience in regulatory compliance, permitting, due diligence, enforcement, and litigation matters. She focuses her practice on advising clients on all aspects of compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Viktoriia works with real estate developers, wind, solar, and transmission line operators, and other businesses on wildlife issues that come up during federal and state permitting. In addition, Viktoriia is a member of the firm’s State Energy Regulation practice where she represents clients before the Virginia State Corporation Commission and Maryland Public Service Commission. Over the years Viktoriia has also developed proficiency in advising clients how to address environmental justice requirements that arise in permitting, litigation, and other contexts. She has also been assisting clients in developing company-wide strategies for compliance with various reporting obligations, for example, EPA’s TSCA PFAS reporting rule.