This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The court agreed with the magistrate’s conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of a nondiscretionary duty under the EndangeredSpeciesAct and that the court therefore lacked jurisdiction. The government also asserted that the MBTA and Eagle Act claims were barred by controlling precedent.
As water and water runoff does not respect political boundaries, international laws on conservation and use are common and applied, especially where there is shared use and responsibility or competing claims to it. This Act came into being in 1973 with the aim of setting out special protections for species at risk of extinction.
Political controversies and fear of litigation may have played a role. Politics aside, the Biden Administration may have felt forced to approve this project. A number of these species are already threatened or endangered under the EndangeredSpeciesAct, and they all face the threat of a warming climate.
Circuit Ruled that EPA Must Consider EndangeredSpecies in Setting Renewable Fuel Standards. Circuit Court of Appeals sent the 2018 Renewable Fuel Standards rule back to EPA after finding that EPA failed to comply with requirements of the EndangeredSpeciesAct. Democracy Forward Foundation v. 1:19-cv-02751 (D.D.C.,
The majority said it “reluctantly” concluded that “the plaintiffs’ case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large” and “[t]hat the other branches may have abdicated their responsibility to remediate the problem does not confer on Article III courts, no matter how well-intentioned, the ability to step into their shoes.”
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court decision that vacated the listing of the Arctic ringed seal as threatened under the EndangeredSpeciesAct (ESA). The decision also addressed a number of non-climate change claims under NEPA, the EndangeredSpeciesAct, CEQA, and other state law.
Although there’s a broad consensus on the science of climate change, that’s not the case with politics. Despite that scrap, the takeaway remains constant — there is no hope of stopping global warming at the ParisAgreement limits of 1.5 Here are five key messages from the final report. Halting at 1.5
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) did not sufficiently explain why it reversed a previous determination that the Pacific walrus qualified for listing as endangered or threatened under the EndangeredSpeciesAct. The appellate court agreed with the court below that the lawsuit raised nonjusticiable political questions.
withdrawal from the Parisagreement, which it calls “lopsided, unenforceable, [and] America- last.” .” AFPI deplores the Biden Administration’s “myopic focus on climate change as a justification for its sweeping radical agenda and massive government expansion.” Not surprisingly, AFPI demands U.S.
The plaintiffs asserted EndangeredSpeciesAct claims, focusing on the federal agencies’ consideration of impacts on grizzly bears and bull trout; the plaintiffs alleged that bull trout are “particularly vulnerable” to climate change because they require cold water to spawn and rear. The groups alleged that the U.S.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 12,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content