46 Cited authorities

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assoc. of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.
463 U.S. 29 (1983) Cited 6,658 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that " `settled course of behavior embodies the agency's informed judgment that, by pursuing that course, it will carry out the policies [of applicable statutes or regulations]'"
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe
401 U.S. 402 (1971) Cited 5,977 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding a decision is committed to agency discretion when there is "no law to apply"
Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council
490 U.S. 360 (1989) Cited 2,004 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts must defer to the "informed discretion" of federal agencies where the agencies’ decisions require "a high level of technical expertise" (quoting Kleppe v. Sierra Club , 427 U.S. 390, 412, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976) )
Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc.
419 U.S. 281 (1974) Cited 1,980 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[w]e can discern in the Commission's opinion a rational basis for its treatment of the evidence, and the `arbitrary and capricious' test does not require more"
Camp v. Pitts
411 U.S. 138 (1973) Cited 1,968 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the focal point for judicial review" of whether agency action is arbitrary and capricious "should be the administrative record already in existence, not some new record made initially in the reviewing court"
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
462 U.S. 87 (1983) Cited 1,152 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a reviewing court must generally be at its most deferential" when examining an agency decision made "within its area of special expertise, at the frontiers of science"
American Wildlands v. Kempthorne
530 F.3d 991 (D.C. Cir. 2008) Cited 280 times
Holding that an agency's use of available data and test methods was reasonable even though better test methods existed because those test methods had not yet been used on the species in question
Allied-Signal, v. U.S. Nuclear Reg. Com'n
988 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1993) Cited 342 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that in determining whether to vacate regulations that violate the APA, a court should consider “the seriousness of the [rule's] deficiencies (and thus the extent of doubt whether the agency chose correctly) and the disruptive consequences of an interim change that may itself be changed.”
Ethyl Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency
541 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1976) Cited 493 times
Holding that the same language from section 211 plainly means that emissions merit regulation even if they are not the only source of air pollution
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Costle
657 F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1981) Cited 325 times
Holding that CWA "assigned secondary priority to the standards and placed primary emphasis upon both a point source discharge permit program and federal technology-based effluent limitations."
Section 706 - Scope of review
5 U.S.C. § 706 Cited 20,527 times 185 Legal Analyses
Granting courts jurisdiction to "compel agency action unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed"
Section 702 - Right of review
5 U.S.C. § 702 Cited 7,099 times 24 Legal Analyses
Granting judicial review of "agency action"
Section 1531 - Congressional findings and declaration of purposes and policy
16 U.S.C. § 1531 Cited 1,676 times 26 Legal Analyses
Finding and declaring that "various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct" while "other species ... have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction ...."
Section 1536 - Interagency cooperation
16 U.S.C. § 1536 Cited 1,322 times 35 Legal Analyses
Requiring that every federal agency "insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species"
Section 1532 - Definitions
16 U.S.C. § 1532 Cited 870 times 34 Legal Analyses
Defining "conservation" as "the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary"
Section 1533 - Determination of endangered species and threatened species
16 U.S.C. § 1533 Cited 817 times 40 Legal Analyses
Requiring periodic review of listed species
Section 1538 - Prohibited acts
16 U.S.C. § 1538 Cited 706 times 11 Legal Analyses
Defining "take"
Section 1539 - Exceptions
16 U.S.C. § 1539 Cited 326 times 5 Legal Analyses
Providing for the discretionary use of experimental populations in species recovery
Section 402.02 - Definitions
50 C.F.R. § 402.02 Cited 489 times 18 Legal Analyses
Defining "action" as "all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the United States or upon the high seas. Examples include, but are not limited to . . . actions directly or indirectly causing modifications to the land, water, or air"
Section 402.01 - Scope
50 C.F.R. § 402.01 Cited 264 times 2 Legal Analyses
Delegating the FWS as the agency responsible for administering the ESA
Section 17.31 - Prohibitions
50 C.F.R. § 17.31 Cited 92 times 6 Legal Analyses
Taking of threatened or endangered species
Section 424.12 - Criteria for designating critical habitat
50 C.F.R. § 424.12 Cited 70 times 14 Legal Analyses
Stating that "Secretary shall designate as critical habitat areas outside the geographical area presently occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species"
Section 17.21 - Prohibitions
50 C.F.R. § 17.21 Cited 70 times
Setting forth take and other prohibitions with respect to endangered species
Section 17.22 - Permits for endangered species
50 C.F.R. § 17.22 Cited 50 times 1 Legal Analyses
Allowing permits for importation of endangered species upon a finding of “enhancement of propagation or survival”

Safari Club International v. Salazar et al

46 Cited authorities

Holding that " `settled course of behavior embodies the agency's informed judgment that, by pursuing that course, it will carry out the policies [of applicable statutes or regulations]'"

Holding a decision is committed to agency discretion when there is "no law to apply"

Holding that courts must defer to the "informed discretion" of federal agencies where the agencies’ decisions require "a high level of technical expertise" (quoting Kleppe v. Sierra Club , 427 U.S. 390, 412, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976) )

Holding that "[w]e can discern in the Commission's opinion a rational basis for its treatment of the evidence, and the `arbitrary and capricious' test does not require more"

Holding that "the focal point for judicial review" of whether agency action is arbitrary and capricious "should be the administrative record already in existence, not some new record made initially in the reviewing court"

Holding that "a reviewing court must generally be at its most deferential" when examining an agency decision made "within its area of special expertise, at the frontiers of science"

Holding that an agency's use of available data and test methods was reasonable even though better test methods existed because those test methods had not yet been used on the species in question

Holding that the same language from section 211 plainly means that emissions merit regulation even if they are not the only source of air pollution

Holding that CWA "assigned secondary priority to the standards and placed primary emphasis upon both a point source discharge permit program and federal technology-based effluent limitations."

Granting courts jurisdiction to "compel agency action unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed"

Granting judicial review of "agency action"

Finding and declaring that "various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct" while "other species ... have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction ...."

Requiring that every federal agency "insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species"

Defining "conservation" as "the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary"

Requiring periodic review of listed species

Defining "take"

Providing for the discretionary use of experimental populations in species recovery

Delegating the FWS as the agency responsible for administering the ESA

Taking of threatened or endangered species

Stating that "Secretary shall designate as critical habitat areas outside the geographical area presently occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species"

Setting forth take and other prohibitions with respect to endangered species

Allowing permits for importation of endangered species upon a finding of “enhancement of propagation or survival”