A group of Louisiana landowners is asking the Supreme Court to review a US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision that dramatically expands the scope of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Weyerhaeuser Co. and Markle Interests, L.L.C.. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Their concerns are well-justified; the appeals court upheld land-use restrictions imposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the purpose of protecting an endangered species of frog—even though the frog does not exist in Louisiana and could not live on the Petitioners’ land unless they substantially modified it.
But Supreme Court review is warranted for an additional and perhaps more important reason: the Fifth Circuit agreed with FWS that the Service’s refusal to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of its actions was not subject to judicial review. As Judge Edith Jones stated in dissent, that decision plays havoc with administrative law and significantly undercuts the “strong presumption” that the actions of federal administrative agencies are subject to judicial review.
Worse still, the appeals court established a double-standard. It permits environmental groups to seek judicial review when FWS invokes cost considerations as a reason not to impose land-use restrictions, but it denies landowners the right to go to court when FWS reaches the opposite conclusion. That denial is particularly troubling, given that FWS’s own studies indicated that its land-use restrictions could cost landowners up to $34 million while providing no discernable benefit to the endangered frog. Continue reading “High Court Must Review ESA Decision that Endangers Ability to Appeal Agency Actions”