San Francisco Baykeeper v. United States Fish And Wildlife Service

Background

Plaintiffs petitioned to list the San Francisco Estuary local population of white sturgeon as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The petition also requested designation of critical habitat. The defendants were the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Director Paul Souza, and Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum.

The defendants received the petition on December 6, 2023. In October 2024, they found that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested action might be warranted. Under the Endangered Species Act, that finding triggered a requirement to make a further finding within 12 months of receiving the petition. The defendants acknowledged that they had not made that required finding by December 6, 2024.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and later stipulated that the motions would be treated as a trial on the papers. The opinion also states in a footnote that the parties stipulated to dismiss a claim brought under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Dispute About the Deadline

The defendants conceded that they had missed the statutory deadline and that the plaintiffs were entitled to injunctive relief. The parties disputed only the deadline the court should impose. The plaintiffs initially requested a 30-day deadline and later proposed a period ranging from 30 days to six months. The defendants proposed a deadline in 2029, citing a backlog of petitions, staffing shortages, a hiring freeze, reductions in force, and the time required by their standard review process.

The court found that the defendants’ standard process could take substantially longer than the Endangered Species Act’s one-year deadline. The process included preparing and reviewing a species-status assessment, internal and headquarters reviews, legal review, preparation of a Federal Register notice, and potentially review by the Office of Management and Budget if critical habitat were proposed.

Legal Analysis

The court held that the Endangered Species Act imposes a firm 12-month deadline for one of three findings: the requested listing is not warranted; the listing is warranted; or the listing is warranted but precluded by other pending work, with expeditious progress being made on other listings and delistings.

The court concluded that the statutory deadline is mandatory and nondiscretionary. The Fish and Wildlife Service could choose how to conduct its scientific review, but it had to structure that review to meet the deadline. The court rejected the defendants’ reliance on competing priorities, staffing problems, and available funding as reasons to extend the deadline. It found that Congress had not completely barred the agency from performing the required work and that the defendants had not shown that completing it within nine months was infeasible.

The court also explained that the “warranted but precluded” option allows the agency to make a less complete decision by the statutory deadline when practical constraints prevent an immediate final listing regulation. That option does not permit the agency to postpone making any decision beyond the deadline.

Ruling and Remedy

The court found for the plaintiffs on the merits of their Endangered Species Act claim. It ordered and enjoined the defendants to make a finding under 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(B) on the petition to list the San Francisco Estuary white sturgeon population as threatened. The defendants must submit the finding to the Federal Register by June 3, 2026, for publication.

The court did not order the defendants to take any particular action on other species petitions. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce its order.